The Old School House

Updated 24 July 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 9 July 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the registered manager is sometimes out of the office at the two other small care homes they manage, and people are often out. We needed to be sure the manager, people receiving support and staff would be available to meet and speak with us.

The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Prior to the inspection, we gathered information from a number of sources. We reviewed the information we held about the service, which included correspondence we had received and notifications submitted to us by the service. A notification should be sent to CQC every time a significant incident has taken place. For example, where a person who uses the service experiences a serious injury. We reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR), which the registered provider completed before the inspection. The PIR is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We contacted Sheffield local authority and Healthwatch (Sheffield) to obtain their views of the service. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. All of the comments and feedback received were reviewed and used to assist and inform our inspection.

During our inspection, we spoke with three people who were receiving support to obtain their views about the service. We were unable to fully communicate directly with some people receiving support. We spoke with four of their relatives or friends to obtain their views of the support provided. We spent time in communal areas speaking with people and observing how staff interacted with each other and the people they were supporting.

We looked around different areas of the service, which included communal areas, and with their permission, some people’s bedrooms.

We spoke with the registered manager, two senior support workers and one support worker to obtain their views.

We reviewed a range of records, which included two people’s support plans, two people’s medical files, three staff support and employment records, training records and other records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 24 July 2018

The Old School House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing 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.

The Old School House can accommodate up to four people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. Accommodation is based over two floors. The home is situated in the S5 area of Sheffield, South Yorkshire near local shops and public transport. At the time of this inspection, four people were living at The Old School House.

There was a manager at the service who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

Our last inspection at The Old School House took place on 19 July 2017. Whilst the service was rated Good overall, we found one breach of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was a breach of Regulation 18: Staffing.

Following the last inspection, we asked the registered provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do, and by when, to improve the key question asking if the service was effective, to at least good.

This inspection took place on 9 July 2018 and was announced. We gave the registered manager 48 hours’ notice of our inspection. We did this because the registered manager is sometimes out of the office at the two other small care homes they manage, and people are often out. We needed to be sure the manager, people receiving support and staff would be available to meet and speak with us.

At this inspection, we found sufficient improvements had been made to meet the requirements of Regulation 18: Staffing, as all staff had been provided with an annual appraisal, as is necessary to enable them to carry out the duties they are employed to perform.

At our last inspection, we rated the service Good. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

People who lived at The Old School House communicated in various ways to tell us they felt safe. Family and friends spoke positively about the standard of care and support people received.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in keeping people safe.

Policies and procedures for the safe management of medicines were in place.

There were robust recruitment procedures in operation to promote people’s safety.

Staff were provided with relevant training and supervision so they had the skills they needed to undertake their role.

People receiving support and their relatives felt staff had the right skills to do their job. They said staff were respectful and caring in their approach.

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’s support plans contained relevant person centred information to inform staff. The support plans had been reviewed to ensure they were up to date.

People were confident in reporting concerns to the registered manager and felt they would be listened to.

There were quality assurance and audit processes in place to make sure the service was running well.

The service had a full range of policies and procedures available to staff.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.