Archived: Pye Nest

Updated 30 March 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 21 February 2018. We announced the inspection because we wanted to make sure people who lived at the service would be available for us to speak with. The inspection was carried out by one inspector. And an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the home. This included looking at information we had received about the service and statutory notifications we had received from the home. We also contacted the local authority commissioning and safeguarding teams and 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 asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The provider returned the PIR and we took this into account when we made judgements in this report.

We observed how care and support was provided to people. We met and spoke with four people who were using the service, a team leader, a support worker and the registered manager.

We looked at two people’s care records, two staff files, medicine records and the training matrix as well as records relating to the management of the service. Four people showed us their bedrooms.

Updated 30 March 2018

This inspection took place on 21 February 2018. This was the first inspection of this service since it’s registration in March 2017. We announced the inspection to make sure service users were available for us to speak with. There were six people living at the service at the time of our visit.

Pye Nest provides care and support to people living in a 'supported living’ setting, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Some people we spoke with had limited verbal communication. However, they very clearly indicated, verbally and from the way they interacted with staff they felt safe and were happy, liked the staff and were supported to follow lifestyles and interests of their choice.

People were clearly fond of and had confidence in the staff who supported them. They told us they felt safe and comfortable with the staff.

Policies and procedures were in place to safeguard people from harm and the staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities in keeping people safe. Accidents and incidents were reported appropriately and reviewed to look for any themes or trends which could be mitigated against.

Medicines were managed safely although further work was required make sure protocols were in place for all ‘as needed’ medicines.

Detailed risk assessments helped to protect people from risks they may encounter in their daily lives.

Staff records showed the recruitment process was robust and staff were safely recruited. People who lived at the home were involved in staff recruitment.

Training was delivered to staff in order to help them support people's specific needs. An induction process was in place and staff training was up to date. Competency checks were routinely carried out.

Staff confirmed they received regular supervision and appraisal and team meetings were held.

Staffing was organised flexibly around the support needs of people using the service. There was a member of staff available in the home over the 24 hour period.

People were supported to plan menus and be involved in cooking. Healthy eating was promoted.

We found staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) but found staff may benefit from more training in relation to court of protection orders. Decisions that were made in people's best interests had been appropriately taken with the involvement of relevant people.

Our observations, together with our conversations with people, provided evidence that the service was caring. The staff had a clear understanding of the differing support needs of people and we saw they responded to people in a caring, sensitive, patient and understanding professional manner.

Person-centred care plans were in place to support staff to provide a personalised service which supported and encouraged people to develop their independence.

Care plans were centred on people's individual needs and contained information about their preferences, backgrounds and interests. However there was little evidence to show how people had been involved in the development and review of their care plans.

People were supported to follow their interests and engage in activities of their choice both within and outside of their home.

People were supported to set goals and we saw evidence of how people were supported to achieve their goals.

People told us they would tell staff if they had any complaints. We saw the complaints procedure was available in an easy read format.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service and to obtain people’s views.