Kathleen House

Updated 2 May 2019

The inspection: We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team: The service was inspected by one inspector.

Service and service type: Kathleen House is a care home that is registered to provide care and accommodation to people who need support as they have a learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders and dementia as part of this condition. The provider offers either long or short term (respite) care.

Notice of inspection: This inspection was unannounced on the first day and announced on the second.

What we did: We visited Kathleen House on 12 and 15 March 2019. The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of care provided. The registered manager was available throughout our inspection.

We reviewed information we had received about the service since they were last inspected by us. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as allegations of abuse, and we sought feedback from the local authority and other professionals who work with the service. We assessed the information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

We met people who lived at the home and spoke with four of them. Some people were not always able to share their views so we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We also spoke with one relative who was visiting and three relatives over the telephone. We also spoke with four staff, (including support workers and senior support workers), the registered manager and provider. We used this information to form part of our judgment. We looked at three people’s care records to see how their care was planned and delivered, this including their medication records. Other records looked at included three recruitment files to check suitable staff members were recruited and received appropriate training. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service along with a selection of the provider’s policies and procedures, to ensure people received a good quality service.

Updated 2 May 2019

About the service: Kathleen House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 15 people with a learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder and dementia as part of this condition. The service offers long term and respite care.

People’s experience of using this service:

People looked comfortable and relaxed with staff and their relatives told us they were safe. Staff told us how they should keep people safe and minimise risks to their safety.

People were supported by staff we saw were caring and expressed interest in people who lived at Kathleen House. People received effective person-centred care and support based on their individual needs and preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about people; their needs and preferences and we saw they had a good relationship with the people.

People were supported by care staff who had a range of skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff understood, felt confident and well supported in their role, and they said they were supported through formal staff supervision. People's health was supported as staff worked with other health care providers to ensure people’s health needs were met.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff understood that they should support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People's care plans reflected people’s needs and preferences and staff and the registered manager could explain any recent changes to people’s care. Where there was changes staff knew how they should provide care to ensure people were safe, their needs were met, and preferences respected.

People’s representatives knew how to complain. Relatives and staff knew how to identify and respond if people were unhappy with the service. People we saw could communicate how they felt to staff, this assisted by staff understanding their individual communication needs. Relatives told us when they had raised concerns these had been addressed appropriately.

People, relatives and staff gave a positive picture as to the quality of care people received and said the registered manager was approachable. We saw staff listened to people and relatives said staff also listened to what they said and involved them by asking their opinions on their loved ones care.

Quality monitoring systems were in place although recording of the outcomes of audit findings could be better recorded so it was accessible in one service development tool. The provider was able to demonstrate they were responding to findings from the quality monitoring system so it was effective.

Rating at last inspection: The rating for the service at our last inspection was ‘requires improvement’ (Published on 22 June 2017).

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection that was due based on our scheduling targets.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk