Sycamore House

An assessment has been undertaken of a specialist service that is used by autistic people or people with a learning disability. We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. The service was meeting the elements of Right support, right care, right culture.

Some improvements were required to people’s care plans relating to incidents of distress. Whilst we found this had no impact to people and staff knew people well, the providers own care plans could be more detailed to include more information about people’s potential triggers and step by step guidelines. People were safe from the risk of abuse, staff understood their responsibilities to report concerns, and staff told us they felt able to report concerns, and action would be taken by the leadership team. People were supported by enough, suitably qualified staff and staff were recruited safely. Accidents and incidents were monitored, and action taken to mitigate risks to people. Notifiable incidents were reported to external agencies as required. People who lacked capacity to make decisions had capacity assessments and the appropriate authorisations in place. People were protected from risks from the environment, and the service was clean and tidy. Medicines were safely managed, stored and monitored, to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

People had their needs assessed prior to using the service, and people’s needs and preferences were regularly reviewed. People had detailed care records in place, which provided staff with information about people’s needs and preferences. People had access to external healthcare professionals to meet their mental, physical and emotional needs. The provider sought feedback from people about their care and support, and people and relatives told us they felt listened to. People were involved in formulating a weekly menu, and people told us they enjoyed the food. Alternative meal choices were on offer for people.

Staff were responsive to people and understood their needs well. People were well kempt, and we observed staff providing people with activities. People attended a range of community activities, including sports activities, holidays, day trips and visits to a social club. People had detailed communication plans in place, to guide staff about how to effectively communicate with people. People were provided with accessible information as required, this included pictures and objects of reference.

Some improvements were required to ensure the provider could evidence the ongoing improvements at the service. However, we found people had been listened to and actions were taken when people raised suggestions. The provider also planned to implement a more robust quality improvement plan. People, relatives and staff told us the service was well led. Staff felt supported in their roles, they told us the management team were approachable and provided them with regular supervisions. We received positive feedback from partners who worked with service. At the time of our assessment, no formal complaints had been made, the management team understood their responsibilities to effectively manage complaints should they arise. Governance systems were in place, including several audits to monitor the quality and safety of the service.