Sherburn House

Updated 14 January 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by two inspectors.

Service and service type

Sherburn House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care

provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as abuse or when a person injures themselves. We contacted relevant agencies such as the local authority and local Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

We used all this information to plan our inspection. The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

During the inspection

During the inspection, we spoke with one person who used the service. We spent time interacting with five other people who used the service and had limited or no verbal communication. We also observed staff interactions with people and observed care and support in communal areas. We spoke with the registered manager and seven members of staff. We reviewed a range of records. This included two people’s care records and medication records. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A sample of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were also reviewed.

After the inspection

We made telephone calls to three people’s relatives to gain their feedback on the service. We also continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records. We had contact with three health and social care professionals who regularly visit the service.

Updated 14 January 2020

About the service

Sherburn House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 12 people who have a learning disability and/or autism. At the time of our inspection, 11 people were using the service.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures 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 received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 12 people. Eleven people were using the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the local residential area and operating as two small wings.

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

The service delivered safe care and made sure risks to people’s health and safety were managed well. People’s relatives told us they had every confidence in the management team and staff and their family members were ‘in safe hands’. Staff knew their responsibilities in relation to keeping people safe from the risk of abuse. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were managed so people received their medicines as prescribed.

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 understood how people communicated their wishes and preferences. Staff supported people to maintain a balanced diet and monitor their nutritional health. They had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. They felt supported and received supervision and appraisals of their performance.

Staff were patient, friendly and kind, and people's privacy and dignity were respected. Staff showed they valued people as individuals and had formed supportive relationships with people. They knew how people preferred their care and support to be provided.

People had up to date support plans, which clearly set out how their care and support needs should be met by staff. These were reviewed regularly with the involvement of people’s relatives. We saw people's rights were respected. People chose to pursue a variety of activities and interests at the service and in their local community. People’s relatives knew how to complain and felt confident any concerns would be listened to and responded to by the registered manager.

There was a positive leadership in the service. The service was well led by a management team who led by example and had embedded an open and honest culture. Audits and checks were carried out to monitor the quality of care delivered. The registered manager was aware of their responsibility to report events that occurred within the service to the Care Quality Commission and external agencies.

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 28 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.