Archived: Henshaws Society for Blind People - 2 East Park Road Harrogate

2 East Park Road is registered to provide care and accommodation for six people who have learning disabilities and an additional sensory impairment. The home is situated within walking distance of Harrogate town centre where there is a wide range of shops and leisure facilities. It is a large four storey semi-detached house with a paved garden area to the rear. The registered provider is Henshaws Society for Blind People. At the time of this inspection there were six people using the service.

2 East Park Road is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the 'Registering the Right Support' and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At our last inspection we rated the service ‘good’. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The service had a registered manager who has been registered for the past sixteen years. 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.

Staff had received safeguarding training and were aware of how to recognise and respond to risk. Individualised risk assessments were in place and people were supported with positive risk-taking to maintain their independence, choice and control.

We found that the management of medication was safely carried out.

Staff had been employed following robust recruitment and selection processes. There were sufficient numbers of staff who were deployed appropriately in the service to meet people’s needs and support people to live safely and as they had chosen to.

People that used the service were cared for and supported by qualified and competent staff that were regularly supervised and received appraisal regarding their personal performance. Communication was effective, People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People received adequate nutrition and hydration to maintain their levels of health and wellbeing. People had been included in planning menus and their feedback about the meals in the service had been listened to and acted on.

People were supported to live their lives to their fullest, as active members of the community which enhanced their lives. They were supported to follow their interests and engage in things important to them. People’s care plans were very person-centred and were reviewed regularly with them to ensure they were involved, and goals were set, which they were supported to achieve.

People were able to see their families as they wanted. There were no restrictions on when people could visit the service. People were supplied with the information they needed at the right time, were involved in all aspects of their care and were always asked for their consent before staff undertook support tasks.

The service was well-led; systems were in place to assess and improve the quality of the service and complaints were responded to thoroughly. There was an open culture and learning was encouraged to drive improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people including the manager and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People spoke positively about the care they received. They confirmed their care and support needs were reviewed with them and their families to check it remained effective and met their needs.

Personal records, and other records we viewed, relating to the management of the service, were accurate and fit for purpose. Risk assessments were completed to support people to develop their skills and to make sure staff support and supervision was provided as needed.

The service had policies and procedures in relation to Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had an understanding of the law relating to mental capacity and DoLS and they knew when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

The provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained. The building was clean and generally well maintained with appropriate furnishings.

People using the service told us they received additional support from the organisation's vision support team to access the environment safely.

Is the service effective?

People's health care needs including sensory care needs were kept under review.

Staff received appropriate training and regular supervision sessions and staff meetings provided staff with a forum in which they could discuss complex issues and areas of good practice.

People using the service said the staff were 'good' and 'worked hard.' People described having good relationships with the staff and one person said the manager did 'a good job in managing the staff.'

Is the service caring?

During our visit we observed a number of positive interactions between staff and the people living at the home. We observed people approached staff confidently for assistance and that staff were quick to offer reassurance and support when needed.

Is the service responsive?

Care records were accurate and reflected changes in people's needs. This made sure that people received the right care.

People told us they met with staff and with other people to discuss what was important to them and their progress. They said they received specialist support from the organisation's vision support team to assist with their sensory and mobility needs.

Records confirmed people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs were recorded. People had access to activities that were important to them and were supported to maintain significant relationships.

Is the service well-led?

Effective management systems were in place to promote and safeguard people's safety and welfare.

The quality assurance system included audits and checks carried out by staff in the home and by other managers from within the organisation. Records showed that issues were identified and responded to in a timely way. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

During our inspection we looked at people's care plans. We saw that people were supported to live as independently as possible. The home had carried out an assessment of the needs of each person, and kept this under review, to enable appropriate care and support to be given.

The home supports some people with their medication. People told us that they received their medication at the right time. Staff had received training and people were supported to take their medication they needed safely.

We reviewed the level of staffing for the home. People told us that there was always enough staff to support them with their care needs.

The home had systems in place to make sure people were safely cared for. This included policies and procedures and quality monitoring systems.