We carried out a review of the data available to us about Perrywood 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 Perrywood House, you can give feedback on this service.
Perrywood House is a residential care home for up to seven people. The service specialises in supporting adults with a range of complex needs and behaviours associated with Prader-Willi Syndrome (PWS) and learning disabilities. PWS is a genetic condition that means people with the condition will have an insatiable desire for food, which can make the person eat excessively. This has the potential to result in life threatening obesity. There were six people using the service at the time of our inspection.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with 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 can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to safeguard people from the risk of harm. People were supported to maintain their health and well-being through careful planning of food intake and access to relevant health and social care professionals.
People’s medicines were managed in a safe way. People’s risks were assessed at regular intervals or as their needs changed. Care plans informed staff how to provide care that mitigated these known risks.
There were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited using safe recruitment practices; people assisted with interviewing of new staff. Staff received training to enable them to meet people’s needs and were supported to carry out their roles.
People received care from staff they knew. Staff had a good understanding of people's needs, choices and preferences. People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided and their privacy and dignity were protected and promoted. Staff gained people's consent before providing personal care.
People were involved in the planning of their care which was person centred and updated regularly. People were supported to express themselves, their views were acknowledged and acted upon. The manager responded to complaints using the providers policies.
The management team continually monitored the quality of the service, identifying issues and making changes to improve the care. Staff were involved in making improvements following incidents and lessons learnt were clearly communicated. The new management team promoted a staff culture which was open and honest.
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.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 22 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
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.
At the last inspection, in January 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.
The service had 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People continued to receive safe care. Staff were appropriately recruited and there were enough staff to provide care and support to people to meet their needs. People were consistently protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.
The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff had access to the support, supervision and training and the ongoing professional development that they required to provide appropriate support to people. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.
People developed positive relationships with the staff who were caring and treated people with respect, kindness and courtesy. People had detailed personalised plans of care in place to enable staff to provide consistent care and support in line with their personal preferences. People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage complaints.
The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The registered manager was a visible role model in the home. People, their relatives and other professionals told us that they had confidence in the manager’s ability to provide high quality managerial oversight and leadership to the home.
This unannounced inspection took place on 27 January 2015. Perrywood House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 7 people and there were seven people living at the home at the time of this inspection. The home specialises in caring for people living with Prader-Willi Syndrome [PWS]. This is a condition where people have a chronic feeling of hunger that can lead to excessive eating and sometimes life threatening obesity.
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.
People who used the service were well looked after by a staff team that had an in-depth understanding of how each person wanted to be supported. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible and treated them with dignity, respect and kindness.
There was sufficient staff available to keep people safe and to meet people’s individual care and support needs. Safe and effective recruitment practices were followed.
Staff could identify what constituted abuse and were knowledgeable about the risks of abuse and the reporting procedures to follow if they wanted to raise any concerns.
The procedures to manage risks associated with the administration of medicines were followed by staff working at the service. There were suitable arrangements for the safe storage, management and disposal of medicines.
People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink to maintain a balanced diet and food choices were plentiful and were monitored by staff with specialist skills in nutrition.
People were not deprived of their liberty. Staff knew how to obtain an urgent authority to request a deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) if it was ever necessary to restrict people’s liberty to keep them safe.
Staff received Induction, training and regular supervision and appraisal which enabled them to carry out their job role effectively.
There was a system in place to monitor the quality of the service and action had been taken when necessary to make any improvements. People, staff and relatives’ feedback was sought and acted upon.
Staff understood their role and had confidence in the way the service was managed.
We spoke with the relatives of four people. They all told us that they had been fully satisfied with the care their relatives received.
One relative said; 'we are delighted with the staff and the manager. The service is second to none'.
We briefly observed the relationship between staff and people who lived in the home. These were positive and friendly.
This was a positive inspection. People we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the care provided. All the relatives we spoke with also said that they had no concerns. The essential standards we inspected were found to have been met.
The people we spoke with all confirmed that they were happy living in the home and had no concerns: 'I like it here. Everyone is my friend'.
The relatives we spoke with praised the service: ''Staff keep me in touch if I need to know anything. I am impressed by the service my son receives'.