Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


SJOG Hospitaller Services Northern Supported Living, Lingfield Point, Darlington.

SJOG Hospitaller Services Northern Supported Living in Lingfield Point, Darlington is a Homecare agencies specialising in the provision of services relating to learning disabilities and personal care. The last inspection date here was 11th January 2018

SJOG Hospitaller Services Northern Supported Living is managed by Saint John of God Hospitaller Services who are also responsible for 11 other locations

Contact Details:

    Address:
      SJOG Hospitaller Services Northern Supported Living
      1-3 Yarn Lingfield House
      Lingfield Point
      Darlington
      DL1 1RW
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01325373700
    Website:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Outstanding
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2018-01-11
    Last Published 2018-01-11

Local Authority:

    Darlington

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

7th November 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We inspected St Bede’s House on 7 and 22 November 2017. This was an announced inspection. We gave the provider 24 hours’ notice. We did this because the service provides support in the community and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

St Bede’s House provides 24 hour care and support for one person who has a learning disability and lives in their own home.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good. We have rated the effective domain was outstanding due to the innovative and multidisciplinary approach used by the provider to support the person to lead a more fulfilled life.

Relatives felt the service was safe. Policies and procedures were in place to keep people safe such as safeguarding, whistleblowing and health and safety. Staff were trained in safeguarding and understood the importance of acknowledging poor practice and reporting their concerns to management. Medicines were managed safely by trained, competent staff. Accident, incident and safeguarding concerns were recorded and investigated to prevent any reoccurrence. Infection control procedures were followed. Staff had access to personal protective equipment. The provider had a file containing information for staff in case of an emergency to ensure service continuity.

Relatives described the effectiveness of the service as amazing and excellent. The provider used a holistic approach to assessing and planning support to meet the person's outcomes. Staff supported the person to achieve their outcomes by using an innovative method by using a range of activities. Staff worked diligently to plan activities which enabled the person to sample various outings and events using behaviour monitoring to recognise which benefited the person in reducing behaviours that may challenge. The provider used current legislation and national guidance when supporting the person. For example, Social Care Institute of Excellence guidance on co-production. Co-production is a method of ensuring people are involved in planning their support. Staff were trained in a range of subjects to meet the needs of the service. Supervision and appraisals were in place for staff following yearly planners. Referrals to health and social care professionals were made when appropriate to ensure healthcare was monitored. Staff provided support and guidance with nutritional needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff gained consent before any intervention with the person.

Staff were caring in their approach with the person they supported. Staffing rotas were developed to ensure staff had the opportunity to spend quality time with the person. Staff put the person at the heart of everything they did. They also offered kindness and maintained relationships with relatives as part of their caring role. The culture within the service was one which promoted personalised care tailored to the person’s needs. Staff respected the person’s privacy and dignity ensuring their independence was promoted. Staff were aware of the person’s life history and knew how important contact with their family was.

Care plans were individualised and contained information on how to support the person in a person centred way. Plans were in place to meet the person’s physical, mental, social and emotional well-being. The staff used a variety of methods to gain information when developing support plans. For example, life history

5th October 2015 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We inspected St Bede’s House on 5 October 2015. This was an announced inspection. We informed the provider at short notice (the day before) that we would be visiting to inspect. We did this because the location is a service for one person who may be out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

St Bede’s House provides 24 hour care and support for one person who has a learning disability and lives in their own home.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were systems and processes in place to protect the person who used the service from the risk of harm. Staff were aware of different types of abuse, what constituted poor practice and action to take if abuse was suspected. Appropriate checks of the building and maintenance systems were undertaken to ensure health and safety of staff and the person.

Risk assessments were in place for both the person using the service and staff members. Staff members told us of the systems they followed in case of emergency as they were lone workers.

Staff told us that they felt supported. There was a regular programme of staff supervision and appraisal in place. Records of supervision were detailed and showed the registered manager worked with staff to identify their personal and professional development.

Staff had been trained and had the skills and knowledge to provide support to the person they cared for. There was enough staff on duty to provide support and ensure that their needs were met. Staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions although no-one currently was subjected to a DoLS. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which applies to care homes. DoLS are part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They aim to make sure that people in care homes, hospitals and supported living are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom

We found that safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. This included obtaining references from previous employers to show staff employed were safe to work with vulnerable people. We spoke with one new member of staff who spoke highly of their induction and support.

Appropriate systems were in place for the management of medicines so that the person received their medicines safely.

There were positive interactions between the person who used the service and staff. We saw that staff treated the person who used the service with dignity and respect. Staff were attentive, showed compassion, were patient and gave encouragement to the person.

The person’s nutritional needs were met, with them being involved in shopping and decisions about meals. Staff told us they closely monitored the person’s intake and would contact the dietician if needed and a nutritional monitoring tool was in place.

The person was supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare professionals and services. We saw they were supported and encouraged to have regular health checks and were accompanied by staff to appointments.

Assessments were undertaken to identify health and support needs. The person had a person centred plan which showed how they wished to be supported.

Staff encouraged and supported the person to access activities within the community and also to maintain family relationships.

The provider had a system in place for responding to any concerns and complaints. Staff told us they knew when the person was unhappy and would take action to resolve this.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Staff told us that the service had an open, inclusive and positive culture.

12th June 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The person using the service had complex needs which meant they were unable to tell us their views because of this we used a number of different methods to help us understand their experience of care and support.

With advance agreement we contacted the representative of the person who used the service. They told us that the service was “very good”. They were “happy enough” with the care received and felt their relative was “settled” because of the continuity of care from the same staff who knew their needs really well. The service kept them updated with the care received and communicated well with them telephoning regularly and discussing issues when they visited.

We found that the service had suitable arrangements in place to act in accordance with the person’s wishes. Care and support met the person’s needs and protected their rights.

The staff which were employed by the service were suitable and adequately skilled. There was an effective system in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided and records were accurate which protected the person from risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment.

8th October 2012 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The person using the service had complex needs which meant they were unable to tell us their views because of this we used a number of different methods to help us understand their experience of care and support.

With advance agreement we contacted the representative of the person who used the service. They told us the service was “wonderful in all respects”. They said they “couldn’t praise the organisation enough but specifically the individuals (who provide care)”. They told us that staff kept their relative safe and promoted their independence as far as they possibly could and they were almost like family. The representative said that the family were very involved with the choices regarding the care of their relative and they attended regular review meetings with the manager and staff in their relative’s home.

 

 

Latest Additions: