Ivy Cottage

This report summarizes an inspection of Ivy Cottage, a home providing personal care for five individuals with learning disabilities. The inspection, conducted over two days in May 2018, focused on assessing the quality and safety of the care provided. While the overall service was rated positively, a key area for improvement was identified in leadership and management practices. The report details findings across five core areas of care quality.

On safety, the home effectively protected residents from abuse through sufficient trained staff and robust risk assessments that balanced safety with individual freedom. Medicines were administered safely, and the premises were kept clean with measures to prevent infection. Safe recruitment practices were consistently followed, and incidents were well-documented with appropriate follow-up actions.

In terms of how effective the care is, residents received person-centred support tailored to their individual needs and wishes, with comprehensive assessments and regularly reviewed care plans. Staff were well-trained and supported to develop their skills, and residents were actively involved in meal planning and preparation. The purpose-built environment was accessible and well-maintained, and the service adhered to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Regarding caring practices, staff built strong, kind relationships with residents, treating them with dignity and respect. They used various communication methods to ensure all residents felt heard and understood. Visitors were welcomed, and residents were supported to maintain important personal relationships. Residents were encouraged to voice their opinions, and their privacy was consistently respected.

In the area of responsiveness, care plans were personalised and used accessible formats, with staff working to understand and address residents' behaviours. The service actively promoted independence by supporting residents in daily living tasks and community engagement. Residents were supported to raise concerns, and there was evidence of meaningful activities planned and undertaken. Staff had also begun discussions about end-of-life care.

However, the service was not always well-led. The absence of the registered manager for several months and the deputy manager’s limited experience led to a decline in day-to-day support for staff, particularly regarding supervision and appraisals. Key management tasks and actions identified by the provider's internal audits had not been completed.