We carried out a review of the data available to us about Sherbutt House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Sherbutt House, you can give feedback on this service.
Sherbutt House is a care home that provides accommodation and support for up to 19 adults who may have a learning disability. People in care homes receive accommodation and or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. There were 18 people living in the service when we inspected. We found the service had considered the national plan to develop community services for people with learning disabilities and/or autism - ‘Building the Right Support’. This plan was introduced in 2015 and advises certain criteria that providers should meet when delivering good quality care, these are; quality of life, keeping people safe, and choice and control.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
Everyone we spoke with described the service as extremely person centred with excellent staff that went above and beyond to meet people’s needs. People continually received personalised care that was tailored to their individual needs. The service promoted engagement and encouraged people to build links with the wider community. People were extremely positive about their lives and told us about their holidays, trips to Cities, work within charity shops, local church groups and lunches out at local cafes. People told us they had made good friends and one relative said their loved one had a better social life since moving into Sherbutt House. Staff and relatives praised the service and its management. They spoke highly of the care and support they provided.
People's care and support needs were assessed using a holistic approach to ensure that their diverse needs could be met. Staff demonstrated the skills, knowledge and experience to care for people effectively and as they had chosen. Where people found it difficult to communicate their needs, staff used a variety of communication methods with them so that their needs were met.
Management were always available, supportive and worked closely with staff, people living at the service and their relatives. Families were invited to attend local events run by the service and able to share meals with them if they wished. People had the use of technology such as mobile phones, email systems and computer applications which enabled them to maintain contact with their families. People were supported by staff if they were unsure of how to use the computer.
All the processes and systems in place were governed by management that supported an inclusive person centred culture and celebrated people’s individuality. These empowered people to access and build relations in the wider community, live fuller independent lives and really engage with each other, their relatives, friends and staff in a way that brought a sense of satisfaction and well-being to everyone in the service.
People were consistently cared for by kind, caring, respectful and compassionate staff. They felt valued and that their thoughts and opinions were listened to. Staff were passionate about their role and had exceptional knowledge about the needs and preferences of people they supported. People and their relatives felt that staff, “exceeded their expectations” and, “would go to any lengths to help them.” Staff were described as, “amazing” and, “kind and compassionate.”
Staffing ratios were more than sufficient to meet everyone’s needs, with some people receiving additional one to one support. People received their medication safely as prescribed and the records were of a good clear standard. Staff had been trained in the prevention of infection and there were sufficient staff employed to ensure the environment was well maintained, kept clean, safe and hygienic.
The service had effective quality assurance systems in place and welcomed external agencies to inspect and give constructive feedback to drive improvements in the service. The registered manager told us they always ensured that people were listened to and that their needs were always at the heart of everything management and staff did.
People were protected from the risk of harm by the systems, processes and practices in the service. Staff knew how to protect people and had been well trained. They knew how to report any potential concerns of abuse using their internal company structure and to outside agencies when required. The registered manager ensured that competent staff were recruited and retained, understanding the importance of on-going training and supervision to support them to carry out their roles.
People were supported as detailed in their care plans where they needed help with meals and drinks. They were involved in menu planning and could choose what they wanted to eat from a wide selection of available foods each day.
People told us they were very happy living at the service and one relative told us they could not ask for any more in respect of the services delivered. Complaints were dealt with effectively and processes in place to ensure lessons were learnt. The service spoke to people and their relatives about their end of life wishes if it was appropriate to do so and recorded the details in people’s care files.
The service worked in line with other legislation such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure that people had as much choice and control over their lives as possible. People were supported to maintain their independence whilst staff ensured they were kept safe by minimising risks. Where people were deprived of their liberty for safety reasons the service had completed the appropriate forms and had authorisations in place to do so.
This inspection took place on 12 and 13 November 2015 and was unannounced. At our last inspection of the service on 8 January 2014 the registered provider was compliant with all the regulations in force at that time.
Sherbutt House is a care home located in Pocklington, East Yorkshire. It provides accommodation and support for up to 19 adults with a learning disability. The service is split into four separate ‘houses’- Sherbutt, Cherry Tree, The Coach House, and Orchard View. There are currently 17 people residing at the service, and their ages range from 45 to 75.
The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and there was a registered manager at this service. 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.
The people who used the service told us that they felt confident about their safety. We found that the staff had a good knowledge of how to keep people safe from harm and they had been employed following robust recruitment and selection processes. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Medicines were administered safely by staff and the arrangements for ordering, storage and recording were robust.
The staff received induction, training and supervision from the registered manager and we saw they had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.
We found that the service was clean and tidy. People who lived in the four houses told us they liked to prepare their own meals in the kitchens provided, but staff gave them support where needed. Everyone who used the service received help from the staff team with shopping and keeping their accommodation clean. This ensured people retained their independence as much as possible whilst learning essential life skills such as budgeting, housekeeping and cooking.
People had their health and social care needs assessed and plans of care were developed to guide staff in how to support people. The plans of care were individualised to include preferences, likes and dislikes. People who used the service received additional care and treatment from health professionals based in the community.
People’s comments and complaints were responded to appropriately and there were systems in place to seek feedback from people and their relatives about the service provided. We saw that the registered manager met with people on a regular basis to discuss their care and any concerns they might have. This meant each person was consulted about their care and treatment and was able to make their own choices and decisions.
Records about the people who used the service enabled the staff to plan appropriate care, treatment and support. The information needed for this was systematically recorded and kept safe and confidential. There were clear processes in place for what should happen when people moved to another service, such as a hospital, which ensured that each person's rights were protected and that their needs were met.
The people who used the service and the staff told us that the service was well managed. The registered manager monitored the quality of the service, supported the members of staff and ensured that the people who used the service were able to make suggestions and raise concerns
Sherbutt House was maintained in good decorative order, and it was tidy and clean throughout. We saw that the environment had been adapted to support people with specific care needs and people were involved in choosing how their rooms were furnished.
During the visit, we spoke with six of the people who used the service. We also looked at the results from the last survey completed in 2013. People said that they were happy in their home and enjoyed the company of the staff team. Relatives reported that the service was homely, friendly, happy and clean.
From our observations and discussions with the manager it was evident that the service was run as a joint effort and everybody contributed to making sure it worked well. The service was managed by an experienced, competent and supportive management team who valued their staff group and encouraged them in their professional development.
We saw that care needs were discussed with people and that before people received care their consent was asked for. One person said 'I like it here' and 'I sign my plan after a chat with my key worker', another person said 'I feel safe here.
Staff were suitably trained and supported to ensure they could offer the appropriate care to people. People were protected from harm and the risk of harm through staff training and risk assessments. Staff could tell us what they would do if they saw abuse happening or someone reported abuse to them.
The quality of the service was regularly assessed and people who used the service and staff were asked for their views about care and treatment and their feedback was acted on.