We carried out a review of the data available to us about Southlees 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 Southlees, you can give feedback on this service.
The registered provider was working within the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service were supported to live as ordinary life as any citizen.
People were safely cared for because systems and processes underpinned the individual support they needed. Risks were appropriately assessed and mitigated, with each person’s full involvement where possible.
People were safely and individually supported with their medicines and staff demonstrated good understanding and safe practice for this. Medicines were securely stored. We spoke to the registered manager about the importance of labelling opened medication.
Staff understood how to safeguard people from harm, and there was a thorough system for recording and learning from accidents and incidents. Premises and equipment were regularly checked for safety.
Staff training and supervision was continuous and staff were very well supported in their role.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported to lead healthy lives and there were effective links with other professionals.
People’s dietary needs were well met and understood by staff.
Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and there were good opportunities for people to be independent. There was a very friendly, supportive atmosphere and people said they were cared for.
Care was person centred and people’s individual needs were promoted and respected. Care records showed individual preferences and people choose their own preferred lifestyle.
The registered provider was very involved in people’s care and support and they knew each person well. There was clear effective leadership and teamwork, with good communication at all levels.
Audits were in place and regular feedback was sought about the quality of the service. Documentation was securely filed and wherever possible, easy-read formats were produced so people were very well included and informed.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
Southlees is a small care home providing accommodation and support for up to six people with learning disabilities. It is part of the Bridgwood Trust; a charity organisation which provides residential, domiciliary and day services to people with learning disabilities.
The service is required to have a registered manager. 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 service had a registered manager.
Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding adults and who to contact if they suspected any abuse. Risk assessments were individual to people’s needs and minimised risk whilst promoting people’s independence.
Medicines were managed in a safe way for people, although minor errors in recording were evident.
There were enough staff to provide a good level of interaction and the registered provider had effective recruitment and selection procedures in place.
Staff received induction, supervision, appraisal and specialist training to enable them to provide support to the people who lived at Southlees. This ensured they had the knowledge and skills to support the people who lived there.
People’s capacity was considered when decisions needed to be made.
People enjoyed the food and were supported to eat a balanced diet. A range of healthcare professionals were involved in people’s care.
We observed staff interacting with people in a caring, friendly, professional manner. Staff were able to clearly describe the steps they would take to ensure the privacy and dignity of the people they cared for and supported. People were supported to be as independent as possible throughout their daily lives.
People were able to make choices about their care. Care plans detailed the care and support they required and included information about peoples likes and dislikes and people engaged in activities which were person centred.
Individual needs were assessed and met through the development of personalised care plans and risk assessments. People and their representatives were involved in care planning and reviews and people’s needs were reviewed as soon as their situation and needs changed
People told us they knew how to complain and told us staff were always approachable. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.
The culture of the organisation was open and transparent. The registered manager was visible in the service and knew the needs of the people who used the service.
The registered provider had an overview of the service. They audited and monitored the service to ensure the needs of the people were met and that the service provided was of a high standard.
Is the service safe?
We observed that staff were consistent in their approach in asking and obtaining consent throughout the day. Their dignity and privacy was respected by seeking and gaining people's permission to visit their rooms. People had given their written consent for the services they received, or where necessary their relatives. Comprehensive risk assessments were undertaken and acted upon via a monitoring of their daily activities. We saw how people's finances were managed appropriately and that people had control over the decisions on how to spend their money during the week.
Is the service effective?
During our visit we looked at three care records. We saw evidence that people who lived at the home, their relatives and carers had been involved in the care planning process. We also saw the care plans were regularly updated. Daily records were in place documenting the care and support people received and the activities they had undertaken.
Is the service caring?
On the day we visited we noted that staff and people who lived at Southless had genuinely warm and friendly relationships. The manager told us that people were encouraged and empowered to be as independent as their physical or cognitive ability would allow. We spoke with four of the six people who lived at Southlees and they confirmed they were encouraged to be involved in a wide range of local activities from swimming, walking groups, specialist clubs and horse riding for the disabled. One person told us that they were 'much happier here' and another said about the home 'Its good. I like it'.
Is the service responsive?
The home operated a key worker system which ensured that the personal support plans were completed and updated. We examined three plans and found the information was person centred and included detailed information about the support people required and their personal preferences. Each plan contained initial information, which included the persons preferred name and information on their next of kin. There was evidence in the records that people had access to other health care professionals for example dentist, chiropodist and optician.
Is the service well led?
The home employed an experienced, enthusiastic and well respected manager who had been in post for over six years. The manager was described as 'fantastic' and the people who lived at the home 'liked' them. The manager told us they were due to complete their national diploma in management and leadership level 5. We discussed the development for the home and noted that they all related to meeting the specific needs of the people who lived at the home. The provider may find it useful to consider developments related to the home's communal areas in particular the garden area.
During our visit we looked at two peoples' support plans. We saw people's individual needs had been assessed and plans for their care and support had been developed from this information.
We spoke to the manager, a support worker and three relatives of people who lived at the home. Relatives we spoke with were positive about the home, comments included:
'Bridgewood Trust is wonderful, I can't recommend it enough'.
'I am really happy, the staff involve me and tell me any changes. The manager always tells me anything she thinks I need to know'.
We looked around the home and found it was clean and well maintained.
We looked at two sets of staff records and found that effective recruitment and selection processes were in place. Documentation also showed an effective system for auditing the quality of service.