About the service:

The Wheatlands provides accommodation with personal care for up to nine younger people who have a physical disability, a learning disability, a sensory impairment or autistic spectrum disorder. The home is set out over two floors across two houses that are joined. At the time of our inspection there were nine people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

People who used the service were supported in a safe way by kind and compassionate staff who knew people well. Staff were suitably trained and promoted choice and independence for people.

Staff provided care and support that was personalised and tailored to meet individual needs. People’s care records were completed and reviewed in conjunction with people and their relatives and people had access to healthcare as and when they needed it.

The service had systems in place to ensure the service was effectively run and that risks to people were reduced. There were mechanisms in place to collate feedback from people and their relatives and this was used to drive improvement. The management team were passionate about living the values of the service.

The service met the characteristics of Good in all areas: more information is available in the full report below.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 5 July 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the date and the rating of the last inspection. The rating continues to be good overall.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive.

This inspection took place on 31 May 2016 and was unannounced. At our previous inspection no improvements were identified as needed.

The Wheatlands is registered to provide accommodation with personal care to a maximum of nine people who have a learning disability, physical disability, sensory impairment or autistic spectrum disorder. There were seven people living at the home and two people staying with relatives on the day of our inspection.

A registered manager was in post and was present during our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were supported by staff who had received training in and understood how to protect them from any harm and abuse. Systems were in place for staff to follow which protected people and kept them safe but did not restrict what they wanted do. Staff knew how to and were confident in reporting any concerns they may have about a person’s safety.

Staffing levels were monitored and kept under review to ensure there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs safely. Checks were completed on potential new staff to make sure they were suitable to work with people living at the home.

People were supported to take their medicines safely and when they needed them. Staff were familiar with people’s preferences on how they wanted to be supported with their medicines and these were respected. Systems were in place to monitor staff practice and only staff who had been trained were able to give medicines.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to understand and support people’s individual needs. These skills were kept up to date through regular training and staff were also supported in their roles by managers and their colleagues.

Staff asked people’s permission before they helped them with any care or support. People’s right to make their own decisions about their own care and treatment was supported by staff. Where people were unable to make their own decisions systems were in place to make sure these were made in their best interests by people who knew them.

People were supported to have a balanced diet and staff supported them to make their own choices about what they wanted to eat and drink. People’s routine health needs were monitored by staff and appointments made as necessary.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and had positive relationships with them. Staff made sure people were involved in their own care and made sure they understood information that was given to them. People were treated with dignity and respect and they were encouraged to maintain their independence as much as they were able to.

People received care that was individual to them and were supported to spend their time how they wanted to. Staff worked with people and their relatives to make sure they had a full and varied life and kept in contact with others who were important to them. Changes in people’s needs were recognised by staff and their support was adapted to meet these changing needs.

People and their relatives had opportunities to give their opinions on the service that was provided. They were kept up to date on what happened at the home and relatives thought communication with staff and management was good.

Staff created a positive environment within the home and worked for the benefit of the people who lived there. Systems were in place for the provider to monitor the quality of care provided and this was used to drive improvements at the home.

We used a variety of methods to help us understand the experiences of people living at The Wheatlands, because most people we met with were unable to share their views.

We observed staff interacting with people in a caring and respectful manner, calling people by their first names and offering choices. We saw staff providing support to people as and when required. Staff were having conversations with people and allowing them time to respond to them.

Care plans showed that people's needs had been assessed, and these assessments had been regularly updated. Staff considered they had all the information they required to ensure people’s needs were met effectively and safely.

People were provided with opportunities to lead full and active lifestyles and their diversity, values and human rights were respected.

We saw people were involved in planning, shopping and preparing their meals. Records showed that staff were monitoring food intake for people at risk of weight loss or gain.

We saw people were protected against the risks associated with unsafe use and management of medicines. We observed that the provider had an effective system for the administration medication.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs. Staff received a range of training to equip them with the skills and knowledge they needed to provide support to the people living at the home.

We visited the service on 11 June 2012. We used a number of methods to help us understand the experience of people who used the service, because people were not all able to tell us their views.

We spoke with one person living at the home, three staff, the manager and the head of residential services. We observed staff interaction with five people using an observational tool designed for the Care Quality Commission.

One person able to talk with us was positive about their life at the home. We looked at the provider’s quality survey analysis about eight people living in the home which were all positive. Records of meetings held with people showed that staff involved people in making choices about food and activities using a variety of communication aids.

During our visit people had opportunity to worship and had individual support for stimulation in the home and community. People had food and drink which met their dietary, cultural and religious needs. People looked well cared for and staff respected their privacy.

We looked at one person’s care records in detail, a variety of records for other people and management audits about care and medication. This showed that people had health checks; care and treatment was person-centred, carefully monitored and reviewed with relatives and health professionals.

We raised potential risk with management about the way we saw medication given to one person, and written guidance for staff did not match what we were told or saw. This was rectified after our visit which reduced the risk.

People had good relationships with staff who worked as a team to manage behaviour using distraction. Staff felt well trained and supported by managers and kept people safe on our visit.

From training and staff records we looked at, there was opportunity for professional development. However the manager did not have a system to make sure that staff had all of the training and qualifications to meet the needs of people who used the service.

We looked at policies about safeguarding, records about complaints and incidents and found robust systems in place which responded appropriately to any concerns. People made no complaints and any comments they made were acted upon.