We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Bungalow 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 The Bungalow, you can give feedback on this service.
The Bungalow is a residential care home providing personal care to 4four people with learning and physical disabilities at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to five people.
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 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 receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
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.
There were systems in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and staff understood their role in protecting people from harm. There was some concern that minimum staffing levels had not always been maintained over few weeks prior to the inspection, however there was evidence of ongoing recruitment at the service and the provider was taking appropriate action to manage the situation. Managers and staff demonstrated reflective practice in order to improve care.
People’s needs were appropriately assessed in order to develop an effective plan of care.
Staff received ongoing training and support to ensure they had the skills to meet people’s specialist needs. Staff worked effectively together as a team and with other professionals. Communication was good across the service.
There was meaningful engagement between staff and people. People enjoyed positive relationships with the staff that supported them and were actively included in all aspects of their care. Where able, people made their own decisions about their daily routines. Staff consistently promoted privacy and ensured their dignity was upheld.
People received a personalised approach to care. Support was responsive to individual needs and people had opportunities to spend their time doing things they enjoyed including regular access to their local community and other places of interest. People were encouraged and supported to share their views about the service and concerns were listened to and acted upon.
People spoke positively about the registered manager and had confidence in how the service was being run. There were effective systems in place to continually monitor and drive improvements. Action was taken to effectively engage with a range of stakeholders and ensure their views were included in the ongoing development of 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 Good (published 5 October 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.
There was a registered manager in place. 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.
At the last inspection on 25 June 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated Good.
People were safe because they lived in a well maintained environment with enough staff available to provide the care they needed. The rota was planned to ensure there were sufficient staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. Additional staff were deployed if people’s needs changed or they required additional support.
Staff adopted a positive approach to risk-taking which enabled rather than restricting people. Staff understood any risks involved in people’s care and took steps to minimise them. Staff understood their roles in keeping people safe and protecting them from abuse. The provider carried out appropriate pre-employment checks before staff started work.
Medicines were managed safely. Accidents and incidents were reviewed to ensure any steps that could be taken to prevent a recurrence had been implemented. There were plans in place to ensure that people’s care would not be interrupted in the event of an emergency.
People’s care was provided by regular staff who knew their needs well and provided support in a consistent way. Staff had access to the induction, training and support they needed to do their jobs. People were supported to exercise 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 were supported to eat food they enjoyed and were encouraged to maintain a healthy diet. Staff were aware of any dietary restrictions involved in people’s care. People were supported to stay healthy and to obtain treatment if they needed it. Staff were observant of any changes in people’s healthcare needs and responded promptly if they became unwell. People who had ongoing conditions were supported to see specialist healthcare professionals regularly.
People received consistent care from regular staff who knew their needs well. Relatives told us their family members had positive relationships with the staff who supported them. Relatives said staff were kind and worked hard to provide the support their family members needed.
Staff treated people with respect and respected their privacy. Staff supported people in a way that Relatives told us staff encouraged their family members to perform tasks with support, which maximised their independence. People were supported to maintain relationships with their friends and families. Staff kept people’s relatives up to date with important events and informed them promptly about any concerns.
People received care that was tailored to their individual needs. Assessments had been carried out before people moved into the home to ensure staff could provide the care they needed. Staff consulted people’s relatives when planning people’s care and involved relevant professionals where necessary. People were supported to participate in activities they enjoyed and to pursue individual interests. People were involved in their local community and had opportunities to attend outings and holidays.
There were appropriate procedures for managing complaints. Relatives told us they had been able to raise concerns with the registered manager. They said the registered manager had demonstrated a positive approach to resolving concerns.
Relatives and staff told us the home was well managed. Relatives said the registered manager was approachable and staff told us the registered manager supported the staff team well. The registered manager carried out regular checks to ensure key areas of the service were being managed effectively.
People who used services, relatives, friends, professionals and staff had opportunities to give their views and the provider responded positively to feedback. Action plans were developed when surveys identified areas for improvement and reviewed regularly.
Staff shared important information about people’s needs effectively. Team meetings were used to ensure staff were providing people’s care in a consistent way that reflected best practice. Staff worked co-operatively with other professionals to ensure people received the care and treatment they needed. The standard of record-keeping was good and personal information was kept confidential. The registered manager kept up to date with changes in legislation and best practice and had informed CQC about notifiable events when necessary.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The Bungalow is a purpose-built care home providing accommodation and personal care for five adults who have learning and physical disabilities.
The inspection took place on 25 June 2015 and was unannounced.
There was a registered manager was 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People’s medicines were administered and recorded accurately. Risks to people had been assessed and control measures had been put in place to mitigate against these risks. The service was clean and hygienic and staff understood how to prevent and control infection. There were plans in place to ensure that people’s care would not be interrupted in the event of an emergency.
People were kept safe by the provider’s recruitment procedures. Staff were aware of their responsibilities should they suspect abuse was taking place and knew how to report any concerns they had. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which meant that people’s care was provided in the least restrictive way.
People were supported to stay healthy and to obtain treatment when they needed it. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and any dietary needs recorded in their care plans. People enjoyed the food provided by the service and were supported to eat a well-balanced diet.
The service provided accessible, safe accommodation. The premises were suitably designed for their purpose and adaptations and specialist equipment were in place where needed to meet people’s mobility needs.
People benefited from a stable staff team who had access to the training and support they needed to do their jobs. Staff were supported through supervision and appraisal and had opportunities for continuing professional development and to work towards vocational qualifications in care.
Staff were kind and caring and had a good awareness of people’s needs. People had good relationships with the staff that supported them. Staff treated them with respect and understood the importance of maintaining confidentiality, privacy and dignity.
People’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the service and kept under review, which meant that their care plans accurately reflected their needs and preferences about their care. Due to people’s complex needs, one-to-one staff support was available throughout the day. This meant that people’s needs were met promptly and that people were able to choose how they spent their time.
The service promoted people’s independence and supported people’s involvement in decisions that affected them. Staff had identified and worked with other people who could support the person in making decisions, such as family, friends, advocates and healthcare professionals. Relatives told us that they would feel comfortable making a complaint if they needed to and were confident that any concerns they raised would be dealt with appropriately.
The service actively sought people’s views about their care and support and responded to their feedback. Care plans were person-centred and reflected people’s individual needs, preferences and goals. They provided clear information for staff about how to provide care and support in the way the person preferred. The service had effective links with other health and social care agencies and worked in partnership with other professionals to ensure that people received the care they needed.
People had opportunities to go out regularly and to be involved in their local community. They had access to a wide range of activities and were supported to enjoy active social lives. People were supported to maintain relationships with their friends and families and to share in celebrations and events.
There was an open culture in which people, their relatives and staff were able to express their views and these were listened to. Staff told us that the registered manager was available and supportive and that they felt able to approach her for advice. Staff met regularly as a team to discuss any changes in people’s needs, which ensured that they provided care in a consistent way.
The registered manager had implemented effective systems of quality monitoring, which meant that key aspects of the service were checked and audited regularly. Records relating to people’s care and to the safety of the premises were accurate, up to date and stored appropriately.
During our visit we saw that the provider had produced a dignity board. The dignity board displayed statements from staff and people that use the service to show what dignity meant to them. The provider told us that this had been done with the involvement of people that used the service.
During our visit we were shown people's bedrooms. The provider asked for people's consent before showing us around. People's bedrooms were personalised and met the individual needs of people using the service.
People chose how to occupy themselves in the service. We observed that people were spending time in the communal areas watching television and interacting with each other whilst listening to music. We observed staff spending the majority of their time with people who used the service.
We saw staff supporting people to make their own choices about what they had to eat and drink and what activities they took part in. Staff knew exactly how each person communicated which meant people's wishes were understood and respected.
Staff that we spoke to felt very valued and supported.