Vane Hill

Updated 22 March 2018

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.

The inspection took place on 11 February 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the records held on the service. This included the Provider Information Return (PIR) which 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 also reviewed notifications. Notifications are specific events registered people have to tell us about by law.

During the inspection we spoke with seven people. We reviewed four people’s records in detail. We also spoke with three staff and reviewed three personnel records and the training records for all staff. Other records we reviewed included the records held within the service to show how the registered manager reviewed the quality of the service. This included a range of audits, questionnaires to people who live at the service, newsletters, minutes of meetings and policies and procedures.

Whilst carrying out our inspection we left our contact details for people or staff to share further information. Six staff contacted us to share their views of the care at Vane Hill and their experiences.

Following the inspection we sought the views of one mental health professional that knew the service well and contacted six professionals who commissioned the services of Vane Hill on behalf of people. We also received feedback from three social workers, a specialist Wernicke’s Korsakoff’s syndrome company and a relative.

Updated 22 March 2018

The comprehensive inspection took place on 11 February 2018 and was unannounced. The last inspection took place on 16 January 2016 and was rated good in all key questions. At this inspection we found the service had improved in the Well Led domain. We have rated this as Outstanding. Vane Hill is a residential care home providing care, support and accommodation for up to 32 people affected by Alcohol Related Brain Damage (ARBD) such as Korsokoff’s (an alcohol related dementia). On the day of the inspection 31 people were using the service. The home consists of two adjacent detached houses providing different levels of care for people. Vane Hill is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. We were supported on the inspection by the registered manager and the staff team.

People were at the heart of everything the service did. There was an exceptionally positive culture within the service. The registered manager had clear values about how they wished the service to be provided and these values were shared by the whole staff team. Staff talked about ‘personalised care’ and ‘respecting people’s choices’ and had a clear aim about improving people’s lives and opportunities. Staff felt very supported and valued, One staff member told us, “I've known [X] for 24 years and whilst I've been working at Vane Hill he has done so much for our residents by helping them get their life back together. [X] has taken the residents out for weekends away which this is good for them, it gets them to know other people and the residents really enjoyed this. Countless examples of people’s lives being improved were given throughout the inspection. Staff went the extra mile to ensure people mattered. A professional shared, ““Many years ago, [X] was a recent admission with some extremely disturbed behaviour. She was hard to contain her in the home and she was constantly self-harming, absconding, drinking when she managed to get out and getting into trouble with the police due to violent outbursts when she was out. Gradually over the years she has stopped self- harming, was able to travel independently without buying or consuming alcohol, was a valued member of the Vane Hill community and earned some qualifications and addressed some of her obsessive behaviours. A few years ago she seemed so much improved that she moved into Shared Lives accommodation with a family.” A relative told us, “May I praise your wonderful manager, [x] Todd at Vane Hill Road. The care he has given my brother, [X], since he became a resident in 1999, is way beyond this man's duty. “Outstanding leadership at the service benefitted people’s lives. Staff were motivated to make a difference. Feedback we received from professionals and commissioners was exceptional, “[X] (the registered manager) has taken residents who have failed in other care homes and for that he is to be commended. He is perhaps one of the most experienced ARBD managers in the UK and we believed that he should be recognised for his achievements.” Best practice in the field of alcohol related dementia was followed and people had excellent outcomes. Partnership working with charities, schools and the local community enhanced people’s lives and gave them a sense of value and worth.

Feedback received by the service and outcomes from audits were used to aid learning and drive improvement across the service. The provider, manager and staff monitored the quality of the service by regularly by undertaking a range of regular audits and speaking with people to ensure they were happy with the service they received. People and staff told us the management team were approachable and included them in discussions about their care and the running of the service.

People told us they felt safe using the service. There were risk assessments in place to help reduce any risks related to people’s care and support needs. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse and were confident any allegations would be taken seriously and investigated to help ensure people were protected.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and experienced staff to meet the needs of people who used the service. The recruitment process of new staff was robust. People were involved in choosing and meeting the staff who worked at the service.

People received support from staff who knew them well, had developed strong relationships with them and had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. People and relatives spoke highly of the staff and the care and support provided.

People were asked to consent to their care and treatment. The registered manager had a good understanding of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and carefully monitored if applications were required. The ethos at the service encouraged personal responsibility, choice and care in the least restrictive way.

People had their nutritional needs met by healthy meals. Food preferences and needs were known and care planned.

Staff used their knowledge of people to help ensure their diverse needs were met for example if people had cultural or communication needs. Staff received training and there was a system of informal and formal support in place. Staff were kind and compassionate. There was mutual respect between people and staff and equality and diversity was understood.

The service was clean and staff understood how to protect people from the risk of infection.

There were opportunities available for people to engage in local community activities such as volunteer and paid work and be involved in talks at the local colleges and school. Activities included trips out to local places of interest, celebrations of special occasions and holidays. People participated in the running of the home to develop skills for daily living.