Background to this inspection
Updated
25 August 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place on 7 June 2016 and was unannounced.
The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert-by-experience had experience of dementia care, and other care environments.
Prior to the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR) and other information we held about the service. This included statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law. We used all this information to decide which areas to focus on during our inspection.
During the inspection we observed care provided by staff to people. In addition we spoke with six people living in the home and two relatives who were visiting at the time of the inspection. We met separately with the deputy manager and one care staff member. We observed how staff shared information with each other at a handover meeting. We also spoke with the registered manager and the provider throughout the inspection.
We spent time looking at records including three care records, three staff files including training records. We also looked at staff rotas, medication administration records (MAR), health and safety maintenance checks, compliments and complaints, accidents and incidents and other records relating to the management of the service.
The home was last inspected on the 13 October 2013 and there were no concerns.
Updated
25 August 2016
This inspection took place on the 7 June 2016 and it was unannounced.
Highgrove House is a residential care home that is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for 20 people. At the time of our inspection 18 older people were living at the home some of whom had physical disabilities.
Highgrove House is situated in Worthing in close proximity to shops and the seafront. It is a spacious home, attractively decorated, maintained to a high standard and suitably designed to meet the needs of the people living there. The atmosphere was friendly and inviting. Pictures hung on the walls and ornaments placed in the communal areas added to a homely environment. Bedrooms are spread out over two floors and all have en-suite facilities. For people who do not have a shower or bath in their bedrooms there are easily accessible communal bathrooms available. Communal areas included a lounge area and a large dining room. The conservatory offers an additional space for people to sit or eat their meals if they so wish. The home also offers a well-kept garden which some people enjoyed using.
The home had a registered manager who had been in post since 2010. 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. The provider was also available throughout the inspection.
People told us and our observations confirmed that Highgrove House provided a safe service. Accidents and incidents were responded to by staff without delay and the appropriate medical professionals were contacted for advice and support when required. However we found one incident, where a medicine error had occurred had not been escalated and reported to the local safeguarding team for their review. We made a recommendation to the provider so that the appropriate action was taken to ensure all future incidents are reported to the local safeguarding authority and the Care Quality Commission about any incidents of potential abuse to people. All other aspects of medicines were managed safely.
There was sufficient staff that had been trained in how to recognise signs of potential abuse and protected people from harm. Risks to people had been identified and assessed and information was provided to staff on how to care for people safely and mitigate any risks.
Staff were provided with regular training and supervision which enabled them to become skilled and knowledgeable and meet the needs of people living at the home. Staff told us they received consistent and continuous support from their managers.
Staff understood the requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and about people’s capacity to make decisions. They also understood the associated legislation under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and restrictions to people’s freedom.
Additional drinks and snacks were observed being offered in between meals and staff knew people’s preferences and choices of where and what they liked to eat.
Staff had developed meaningful relationships with people and demonstrated a caring approach.
People received personalised care. Care plans reflected information relevant to each individual and provided clear guidance to staff on how to meet people’s needs. There was a complaints policy in place. All complaints were treated seriously and were managed in line with this policy.
People were provided with opportunities to give their views about the care they received from the home through various means such as care plan reviews and resident meetings. Some people chose to use these opportunities to become more involved with their care and treatment. Relatives were also encouraged to give their feedback on how they viewed the service and where necessary support with the reviewing of the care plans alongside more senior staff.
Staff knew their role and their responsibilities including how people must be support. A range of quality audit processes overseen by the registered manager were in place to measure the overall quality of the service provided to people. The managers were committed to providing a high standard of care.