Apple House

Updated 15 April 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 31 March 2021 and was announced

Updated 15 April 2021

Apple House is a care home service that does not provide nursing care. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered to accommodate up to four people and provides care and support for four adults with learning disabilities, all of whom have lived at the home for many years. The home is sited in a residential area provides a homely environment for people, with access to a garden area.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 27 February and 1 March 2018. At the time of this inspection there were four people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in post who had worked at the home for many years. 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.

Overall, people received a high standard of care and support at Apple House.

The registered manager and directors had been responsive to meeting people’s needs. Relatives and a healthcare professional provided very positive feedback regarding the care provided at the home. People were involved in developing their care plans and informing staff about how they wished to be supported. Staff responded promptly to people’s changing needs. Staff utilised their detailed knowledge of people’s needs and preferences to ensure people were able to continue taking part in activities that were important to them.

People enjoyed a range of activities that were arranged communally and individually, based on people’s own choice.

People were supported to exercise choice and empowered to take calculated risks and have control over their lives. People were actively involved in the local community and supported to meet their social and spiritual needs.

The registered manager had good systems to make sure that the environment and the way people were looked after were safe. Risk assessments had been completed ensuring care was delivered safely with action taken to minimise identified hazards. The premises had also been risk assessed to make sure the environment was safe for people.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding adults and were knowledgeable about the types of abuse and how take action if they had concerns.

Accidents and incidents, although uncommon, were monitored to look for any trends where action could be taken to reduce chance of their recurrence.

Sufficient staff were employed at the home and staffing was planned flexibly to meet the needs of people accommodated.

No new staff had been recruited to the service since the last inspection but recruitment policies and procedures were in place, should the service need to recruit more staff.

Medicines were managed safely.

The staff team were both knowledgeable and suitably trained.

Staff were well supported through supervision sessions with a line manager, and an annual performance review.

Staff and the manager were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and acted in people’s best interests where people lacked capacity to consent.

The home was compliant with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, with appropriate referrals being made to the local authority.

People were provided with a good standard of food and were fully involved in planning menus and what they wanted to eat.

Staff had good morale and knew people’s needs. People were treated compassionately.

There were complaint systems in place and people made aware of how to complain.

Should people need to go into hospital, systems were in place to make sure that important information would be passed on so that people could experience continuity of care.

The home was well led. There was a very positive, open culture in the home.

There were systems in place to audit and monitor the quality of service provided to people.