Tinkers Hatch

There is a main house which provides accommodation for up to 18 people. A separate cottage for five people and two units which each accommodate one person.

There was a day centre which people were able to attend to take part in activities. The day centre was also open to people who did not live at the home. Some of these people spent periods of time at Tinkers Hatch as part of respite care packages. This gave people the opportunity to maintain contact with people and staff in between their stays at the home.

Right Support Tinkers Hatch is a large care home with a separate cottage for five people and two units which each accommodate one person. There was also a day centre which people attended for respite. People living at the home also used the day centre to engage in activities. This model of care does not reflect the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. The provider was aware of this and was working to make changes. People who lived at the home were happy within the setting. Staffing issues sometimes limited the activities people could engage with. People's skills and independence had not always been promoted and developed. People were not supported to set goals, develop and improve daily living skills.

Risks to people were managed safely. However, some environmental risks were not always assessed or identified. This needed to be addressed through the audit and governance system, so they were not missed. Although activities could be impacted by staffing levels there was an emphasis on providing a wide range of activities which people enjoyed. People were supported to take trips out and enjoy celebrations at the home.

Right Care The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. We found the service was not always working within the principles of the MCA.

Improvements were needed to people's care plans as these were not always person centred and did not always include the information staff may need. People were not always involved in the development of their care plans.

Staff knew people very well, they understood how to communicate with and support each person in the way the person wished. People were protected from the risks of harm and abuse. Staff were aware of their responsibilities and how to report concerns. Feedback from health and social care professionals was consistently positive. Staff worked with them to ensure people's health needs were met.

Right culture There was a negative culture within the staff team which meant staff were not always able to work together as a team. The provider and registered manager were working to address these concerns. Staff were clear that they wanted to see change to improve the culture. One staff member sent us a reflective account of the inspection feedback and where they could start to make a difference to the culture.

The quality assurance systems needed to be developed and embedded into everyday practice to help identify areas for improvement and development.

Staff were committed to providing good care to people and enabling them to live their best lives possible,