Background to this inspection
Updated
9 February 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.
We inspected the service on 16 and 17 November 2017 and the inspection was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of three inspectors and two experts 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.
Prior to our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. This included information received and statutory notifications. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We sought feedback from health and social care professionals who have been involved with the service and commissioners who fund the care for some people who use the service and due to the concerns raised by commissioners we brought forward our inspection.
During the visit we spoke with 11 people who used the service, four relatives, five care staff, one housekeeper, one cook, four nurses, two members of the therapy team, two unit managers, two members of the quality monitoring teams and the service manager. We also 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 looked at all or part of the care records of nine people who used the service, medicines records, staff recruitment and training records, as well as a range of records relating to the running of the service including maintenance records and quality audits carried out by staff at the service.
Updated
9 February 2018
We inspected the service on 16 and 17 November 2017. The inspection was unannounced. Nottingham Neuro Disability Service Hucknall is a rehabilitation and care home for adults with acquired brain injury and other complex neurological conditions. The service is provided over three units. 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. Nottingham Neuro Disability Service accommodates up to 71 people across the three units. On the day of our inspection 57 people were using the service.
At our previous inspection in November 2016 the service was rated as good. However we returned to inspect the service following concerns raised by the local authority related to the care of people who lived at the service. During our inspection we found the concerns raised by the local authority had been addressed by the provider and the service has retained a rating of ‘Good.’
The service did not have a registered manager in place at the time of our 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. The previous registered manager had left the service in September 2017 and the present service manager was in the process of applying to become registered with the CQC and completed the process following our inspection.
People were supported by staff who knew how to recognise abuse and how to respond to concerns. Risks in relation to people’s daily life were assessed and planned for to protect them from harm and they lived in a clean, hygienic service.
People were supported by enough staff to ensure they received care and support when they needed it. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.
People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills to provide safe and appropriate care and support. People were supported to make decisions and staff knew how to act if people did not have the capacity to make decisions to ensure their rights were respected.
People lived in a service which met their needs in relation to the premises and adaptions were made where needed. People had access to information in a format which met their needs.
People were supported to maintain their nutrition and staff monitored and responded to people’s health conditions.
People were supported by staff who showed compassion and were empathetic towards them. They were supported to maintain their privacy dignity and independence.
People lived in a service that provided individualised care and staff had the information they required to provide that care. People were supported to follow their interests, take part in social activities and develop and maintain relationships that were important to them.
People were supported if they had complaints or concerns about their care and there was an open and transparent culture in the service where people were listened to and staff were valued.
The quality of the service people received was regularly monitored using robust quality auditing systems.