Archived: Hepworth House

Updated 24 March 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 26 February 2016, and was unannounced. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

Before 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 also reviewed other information we had for this service and found that no recent concerns had been raised. We also spoke with the local authority to gain their feedback as to the care that people received.

Due to people’s complex needs we were unable to communicate verbally with them all. We therefore 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 observed how staff interacted and engaged with people during individual tasks and activities.

We spoke with seven people and two relatives to determine how they viewed the service delivery. We also spoke with one visitor, two social care professionals, the registered manager and provider, two cooks, the activity coordinator and three care staff.

We looked at seven people’s care records to see if they were accurate and reflected their needs. We reviewed five staff recruitment files, eight staff supervision records, four weeks of staff duty rotas and training records. We checked seven medicines administration records and reviewed how complaints were managed. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service, including quality audits and health and safety checks to ensure the service had robust systems in place to monitor quality assurance.

Updated 24 March 2016

Hepworth House provides care for up to 18 older people who have a range of needs including dementia and physical disabilities. It is situated in Bedford, close to the town centre and with easy access to local amenities. On the day of our visit, there were 17 people living in the service.

Our inspection took place on 26 February 2016. At the last inspection in January 2014, the provider was meeting the regulations we looked at.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People told us that the service was extremely caring and that staff always went the extra mile in ensuring they received care that was not only kind but compassionate. People and their relatives were tremendously vocal in their praise for the compassionate and empathetic care provided at the service. They told us that people’s needs were considered to be of paramount importance by staff and that each member of staff supported people in a dignified and considerate manner. People felt that staff went above and beyond to ensure that people received the right care for them. Staff had fostered meaningful and trusting relationships with people which proved to be of great benefit to them; people were extremely happy and spent large parts of the day with huge smiles on their faces, laughing and engaging with staff and each other in a really profound and positive manner. People were valued for their contribution towards the service and their involvement was never forgotten, even when they had left.

People were encouraged and empowered to be as independent as possible within the service and made to feel as though they were extremely important by enabling them to take on small, but valuable roles. They were supported by highly committed staff that were exceedingly knowledgeable about how to meet their needs. Staff understood how people preferred to be supported on a daily basis and were skilled in communicating with them and enabling them in order that they could make as many decisions for themselves as possible. People were very strong in their belief about the positive impact that staff had made to their lives and how much they had gained from them. People told us they could rely upon staff to be there for them and provide support, affirmation and a friendly, caring face at all times.

People were treated with dignity and respect by staff who understood how to promote and protect people’s rights and maintain their privacy. People had access to advocacy services when required. Relationships with family members were valued and people were supported by staff to maintain these.

People told us that they felt safe living at the home. Staff were knowledgeable about the procedures to ensure that people were kept safe and protected from harm and abuse. Staff were also aware of whistleblowing procedures and would have no hesitation in reporting any concerns. Risk assessments were in place and were specific to people’s needs; these were aimed at empowering people whilst also maintaining their safety.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff employed at the home. The provider’s recruitment process ensured that only staff that had been deemed suitable to work with people at the home were employed following satisfactory recruitment checks had been completed. People received their medicines as prescribed and there were safe systems in place for the administration, disposal, storage and recording of medicines.

Staff received an induction based upon the fundamental standards of care, which determined their competency in a variety of subjects. They also received on-going training and formal supervision, to help them to deliver safe and appropriate care to people.

Staff sought people’s consent before supporting them on a daily basis and ensured they were offered choices. We found people’s rights to make decisions about their care were respected. Where people were assessed as not having the mental capacity to make decisions, they had been supported in the decision making process. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were in progress and had been submitted to the authorising body.

People were provided with a varied menu and had a range of meals and healthy options to choose from. There was a sufficient quantity of food and drinks and snacks made available to people at all times. People were supported to access a range of health care professionals. These included appointments with their GP, hospital services and care from district nurses.

People received person-centred care, based on their likes, dislikes and individual preferences. People’s care was provided by staff in a caring, kind and compassionate way. People’s hobbies and interests had been identified and were supported by staff in a way which involved people to prevent them from becoming socially isolated.

The service had a complaints procedure available for people and their relatives to use and all staff were aware of the procedure. People were supported to raise concerns or complaints. Prompt action was taken to address people’s concerns and prevent any potential for recurrence.

There was an open culture within the service and people were able to talk and raise any issues with the staff. People were provided with several ways that they could comment on the quality of their care. This included regular contact with the provider, registered manager, staff and completing annual quality assurance surveys. The provider sought the views of healthcare professionals as a way of identifying improvement. Where people suggested improvements, these had been implemented promptly and to the person’s satisfaction. The provider had robust audit systems in place, to monitor quality assurance and safety and to drive future improvements.