Burridge Farm

Services for people with learning disabilities and or autism were supported. The service was in the countryside about two miles from the nearest village, Sandford. This did not impact negatively on people as there were sufficient staff and vehicles to ensure people could access the local community. The farmhouse was two storey and had 5 bedrooms as well as communal areas. There was also a separate annexe where one person had living space including a bedroom. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate Burridge Farm was a care home. Staff were discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

Feedback from people and their relatives was very positive. Comments included, "I am very happy here." Professionals were also complimentary about the care and support people received. Comments included, "I have found that the service engages very well with me and feel they pass the 'mum's test'."

People had care plans which described their risks, needs and preferences. Care plans provided information for staff on how to support people. Important details about each person were recorded, for example, details about their family and their background. Staff understood how each person communicated both verbally and non-verbally. People received their medicines from staff who had been trained and knew how to administer medicines correctly. Medicines were stored safely. Staff were recruited safely. Staff were supported to do training to ensure they knew how to support people well. Risk assessments and care plans described how people should be supported to minimise risks and

maximise people's choices wherever possible. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and worked within this legal framework to support people. This included applying for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations when necessary. The newly appointed manager had applied to be registered with the Care Quality Commission. They had worked at the service as a deputy manager and therefore knew people, their relatives and staff well. Feedback showed they were well thought of. For example, professionals said they thought the service was well run by a manager who knew people well and understood their responsibilities. There were systems to monitor and assess the quality and safety of the service. Where issues were identified there were improvement plans to address them. The provider was working with the manager to make changes to ensure the service delivered care in line with best practice. They were supported in this by health and social care professionals, including the quality assurance and improvement team at the local authority. The manager understood their responsibility to report significant events when necessary to the correct authorities including the Care Quality Commission. This included acting on their duty of candour where there were concerns about safeguarding vulnerable adults.