Enham Trust – Care Home Service (Michael & William Houses)

The service was a campus setting. Campuses are group homes clustered together on the same site and usually sharing 24-hour staff. At the time of the inspection, 16 people were living in Michael House, 15 people were living in William House and 8 people were living in Elizabeth House. People's experience of using this service and what we found.

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. 'Right support, right care, right culture' is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

Campus settings for people with learning disabilities and/or autism are not in line with current best practice. The provider was reviewing their service model in accordance with the principles of 'Right support, right care, right culture' and with input from commissioners, people and their relatives.

Despite the service's size we found people were supported in a way that was person-centred, and promoted choice, inclusion, control and independence.

The service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of Right support, right care and right culture. Right support: ● The model of care provided people with the appropriate opportunities to maximise their choices.

Right care: ● Care was provided in a person-centred manner and people told us they felt supported.

Right culture: ● The leadership in the service created a culture of inclusion which empowered people's lives.

Significant improvement had been made in respect of the premises, the care people received and the leadership within the organisation since the last inspection. People were supported to make choices about their future, including where they lived and who they were supported by.

Staff had received regular training in safeguarding and were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities.

People told us staff responded to requests for support. Medicines were stored and administered safely, and people raised no concerns about their medicines. Staff had good knowledge of how to respond to accidents and incidents.

People's needs were assessed when they moved into the service. People were happy about the support they received. Staff had received training that was relevant to their role. People's nutritional and hydration needs were being met and they were offered a varied choice of foods.

Staff had good knowledge of people's communication needs. The service offered activities daily to people in communal areas or in their own rooms. People were supported to maintain relationships with their loved ones. People's wishes for end-of-life care were identified by the service.

Staff had good knowledge of people's needs. We observed staff speaking to people in a caring and empathic way. Relatives felt staff cared about their loved ones. People were actively engaged in developing the care they received. Quality assurance systems were in place which were effective in driving improvement.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff 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