• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Life Opportunities Trust - 15 Rose Vale

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

15 Rosevale, Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire, EN11 8NR (01992) 443189

Provided and run by:
Life Opportunities Trust

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

10 November 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Life Opportunities Trust - 15 Rose Vale is a care home providing accommodation for up to eight people with a learning disability or autism, including older people, some of whom are living with dementia and or a physical disability. At the time of the inspection there were six people living at the home.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Since the last inspection, there have been two different managers in post. The current registered manager is on a leave of absence, so the home was being managed by a third and interim manager.

Training relating to infection control and COVID-19 had been delivered. However, staff did not feel confident in their knowledge. In addition, we saw staff were wearing long sleeves which did not allow for the ‘bare below the elbow’ rule for effective handwashing. We also found that staff removed their masks to eat and drink with people. This had not been risk assessed or determined as to if it was necessary, even though staff members had tested positive for COVID-19.

Staff training, supervision and support had been lacking at the last inspection. Staff told us this had started to improve with the interim manager in post. Staff hoped they would stay at the service.

The environment had not improved. The refurbishment plan had not been completed due to delays caused with the pandemic. The interim manager and the provider were aware of the improvements that were required and were focused on making those improvements.

The recruitment process was managed by head office and as a result there was limited information held in the home about new staff starting. We found that the management of the recruitment process for staff needed to be more robust.

Governance systems needed to monitor and identify concerns had been developed however it was too early to tell if these had been effective as due to the pandemic and the number of changes to the manager of the home. Audits for areas such as infection control, care plans and medicines were completed. However, the medicines audit needed further development to ensure it identified shortfalls such as recording gaps.

People told us they felt safe and that staff were kind, they liked them and liked living at the service.

Incident, events and unexplained injuries were recorded and investigated. Where needed, incidents were reported appropriately.

We were told that things at Life Opportunities Trust - 15 Rose Vale had improved with the interim manager in post. They were working to implement training, systems and guidance to help address previous concerns.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people.

The service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of Right support, right care, right culture.

People spent their day in a way they chose, for example, one person wanted to stay in bed a bit later so staff didn’t disturb them. People told us they could make their own choices about eating and daily routines, people were able to get out to the places they enjoyed prior to the recent lockdown and relationships were supported. Staff had developed relationships with people, and we saw people were treated as equals.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 12 February 2020) and there were multiple breaches of regulation. The provider sent us an action plan stating how they would make the required improvements.

Why we inspected

CQC have introduced targeted inspections to follow up on Warning Notices or to check specific concerns. They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.

We undertook a targeted inspection to follow up on the concerns we had at the last inspection and specific concerns which we had received about the service. The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about the care people were receiving. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.

We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from these concerns.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Please see the safe section of this full report. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Life Opportunities Trust - 15 Rose Vale on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

20 December 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Life Opportunities Trust – Rosevale is a care home registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up eight older people living with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection eight people were living at Life Opportunities Trust – Rosevale.

The service had not been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service did not always receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were not always protected from the risk of harm. When people sustained unexplained bruises or skin tears these were not investigated or reported to external safeguarding authorities. Lessons following incidents, accidents or complaints were not shared and used to improve practise.

Recruitment checks did not fully assess a staff member suitability for the role they were working in.

Staff had not received consistent support from management or specific training to understand the needs of the people they supported. Staff competency and skills had been rarely reviewed.

The outcomes for people did not fully reflect the principles and values of Registering the Right Support. This is because people were not treated with dignity and respect at all times. There had been some improvements in supporting people to participate in activities, but some people were not always supported to help them experience positive, meaningful daily lives that promoted their independence and wellbeing.

The registered manager had not investigated or responded to complaints raised. People were not always provided with information in an accessible format they could understand.

The provider failed to ensure that people received a good quality service in a personalised and safe way. People were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice.

The governance systems in place were not used effectively to identify areas for development and to improve the service. Staff had been unable to share their views and opinions on the management of the service, or ideas to develop care.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff. People’s medicines were managed safely.

People’s needs were assessed prior to the moving to the service to ensure their needs could be met.

Staff and relatives were positive about the changes in the management team, and supportive of the very recent improvements made in the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update:

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 04 December 2018). At this inspection we found that the provider was in breach of regulations. This service has been rated requires improvement for the last two consecutive inspections.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Enforcement

We have identified breaches in relation to keeping people safe from harm, staffing, responding to complaints, good governance and duty of candour at this inspection.

Follow up

We will meet with the provider following this report being published to discuss how they will make changes to ensure they improve their rating to at least good. We will work with the local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

11 October 2018

During a routine inspection

This inspection was carried out on 11 October 2018 and was unannounced.

Life Opportunities Trust-15 Rosevale is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one CQC contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. They are registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to eight older people, some of whom have learning disabilities. There were seven people living at the service on the day of our inspection.

At their last inspection on 12 January 2016 we found the service Good, however at this inspection we found that some of the areas of the service needed improvement.

Recruitment procedures were not as robust and the provider`s recruitment policy had not been developed to ensure it was fully compliant with the regulations. Candidates were not asked to provide a full employment history and the registered manager had no sight of the references received so they could effectively assess the suitability of their staff because recruitment files had not been kept at the home only at the provider`s head office.

Staff were responsible for maintaining a clean environment; however, we saw that tis had not been done. There were stained carpets and walls as well as cobwebs on lamp shades.

Staff received training in subjects considered mandatory by the provider, however more specialist training for staff to develop skills to meet people`s changing needs was not proactively planned.

Staff told us they felt supported to carry out their roles effectively, however they told us staffing was at times a problem and agency staff had to be used to ensure people had their needs met.

People felt safe and were happy with the support they received. Care plans were in place to give guidance for staff on how to meet people`s needs. However, people`s end of life care needs were not assessed and there were no clear processes or systems for staff to follow of when and how they had to approach these conversations with people or their relatives where appropriate.

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. Staff discussed with people the care and support they received and obtained their consent.

People`s dignity and privacy was promoted and respected by staff. Staff enabled people to maintain and develop relationships and stay safe.

People told us staff were kind and caring and their dignity was protected. People had been involved in planning and reviewing their care and support by staff who used pictorial documents where it was needed to aid people`s understanding.

Risks to people`s well-being were assessed and measures were in place to mitigate risks. Staff were knowledgeable about risk to people and how to minimise risks.

People were positive about the service they received, however relatives told us some aspects of the care and support people received needed improvement. These areas included cleanliness of the building and opportunities for people to take part in meaningful activities as well as access the community more often.

The registered manager used a range of audits to check the quality and safety of the care provided. We found that where issues were found, remedial actions were not always recorded and monitored to ensure these were completed.

12 January 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection was carried out on 12 January 2016 and was unannounced.

Life Opportunities Trust-15 Rosevale provides accommodation and personal care for up to 8 people older people, some of whom have learning disabilities. There were 7 people living at the service on the day of our inspection.

At their last inspection on 5 November 2013, they were found to be meeting the standards. At this inspection we found that they had continued to meet the standards.

There was a manager in post who had been at the service since April 2014. However, the previous manager was still registered with the commission although they had left the service in 2013 and we had not been notified in accordance with the registration regulations. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The manager of the service submitted their application the day following our inspection. However, this was an area that required improvement.

The Mental Capacity Act (2005) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. Where they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working in line with the principles of the MCA and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met. We found that the service was working in accordance with MCA and had submitted DoLS applications which some were pending an outcome.However, where DoLS applications had been authorised, the sevice had not submitted statutory notifications to the commission as required.

People received care that met their needs and care plans were up to date and person centred. People received the appropriate support to eat and drink and had access to health and social care professionals. People had access to day centres and in house activities and there were opportunities to go out regularly if they wished. Risks were well managed and staff knew how to keep people safe. Accidents and incidents were reviewed to minimise the risk of a recurrence.

Staff knew people well and involved them in planning and reviewing their care. Staff had been recruited through a robust procedure and received regular training and supervision. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and where agency staff were used, they tried to ensure the same staff attended to help provide continuity of care.

People, their relatives, staff and professionals were positive about the manager and their leadership style. There were systems in place to identify and resolve any issues and improve the quality of the service.

5 November 2013

During a routine inspection

Most people who lived at Rose Vale had complex needs and were unable to tell us about their experience in detail. However, it was clear that people were happy and well supported. The three relatives we spoke with told us the care was good. One relative told us, 'We could not be happier. We feel so fortunate to have found somewhere like Rose Vale."

Care plans contained information about how people liked to be supported and were regularly reviewed. We also found that people were supported to make decisions about their care. However, we found that annual reviews of people's care were not up to date.

Staff told us they enjoyed their work and felt well supported. Records showed that supervision meetings took place regularly. However, staff had not recently received an appraisal.

We saw that a number of different systems were in place to monitor the quality of care provided. Feedback from people who use the service and their relatives was regularly sought and the provider took action as a result.

25 September 2012

During a routine inspection

Many of the people living in 15 Rose Vale had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us about their experiences. People responded to us with smiles when we spoke with them. We noted staff members engaging with people and offering choices as to what activities they wanted to do and what they wanted to drink.

Subsequent to the inspection visit we spoke with relatives of three people living in the home to gather their views about how people were supported and cared for at the home. People told us that they felt their relatives were being cared for in a safe and appropriate manner. A relative told us the communication was good. They said that staff told them if the person's needs changed. One person stated, "if I had any concerns I would talk to staff, I know they would sort things out.'