Archived: Henshaws Society for Blind People - 12 Church Avenue Harrogate

Henshaws Society for Blind People - 12 Church Avenue Harrogate is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as single package under contractual agreements. Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service accommodates up to six people with a learning disability, some of who also have a sensory impairment. Six people were using the service at the time of inspection.

At our last inspection in March 2016 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 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.

People were supported by appropriate numbers of suitably trained staff who had been recruited safely. People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. When accidents or incidents took place, they were investigated and action was taken to prevent future reoccurrence. People received their medicines safely and were supported to self-medicate when possible. Appropriate systems were in place to order, store and administer medicines safely.

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.

Staff had completed training and received on-going mentoring and support which enabled them to meet people’s needs effectively.

People were encouraged to maintain a healthy and balanced diet. People were supported to make drinks and meals themselves and to create weekly menus.

Care records were well maintained and reflected people's care and support needs. People were encouraged to express their views about the care and support they received. They were involved in the initial assessment of their needs and the on-going planning of their care and involvement with healthcare professionals. People told us staff treated them with dignity and respect and we observed staff were kind and patient.

People followed a range of diverse interests and pursuits of their choosing.

A complaints policy was in place and this was available in audio format to ensure it was accessible for the people who used the service.

Staff told us the manager was approachable and supportive. Management systems were in place for checking the quality of the service and these continued to be developed to ensure the delivery of the service was improved year on year. Notifications were submitted to the CQC as required.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection was undertaken on 14 March 2016, and was unannounced. The service was last inspected on 1 May 2014 and found to be compliant with all of the regulations that we assessed.

There was no 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.

A manager was in post at the time of our inspection but had not commenced the process to apply to be the registered manager. We have called them the 'manager' throughout this report.

People who used the service were protected from abuse and avoidable harm by staff who had been trained to recognise the signs of potential abuse and knew what actions to take if they suspected abuse had occurred. Accidents and incidents were investigated and action was taken to prevent their future reoccurrence. Staff had been recruited safely and relevant checks were completed before they commenced working within the service. People were supported to self-medicate when possible and appropriate systems were in place to order, store and administer medicines safely.

People were supported by staff who had the skills and experience to carry out their roles effectively. Staff received effective levels of support, supervision and mentorship. People who used the service were supported to make their own decisions about aspects of their daily lives. The staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) when there were concerns people lacked capacity and important decisions needed to be made. People were encouraged to maintain a healthy lifestyle and eat a balanced diet. People’s needs were met by a range of healthcare professionals.

People’s needs were met by caring, patient and considerate staff. The staff team had worked within the service for over 10 years which meant they knew people’s preferences for how care and support should be delivered and had built a trusting and supportive relationship with the people who used the service. People were treated with dignity and respect by staff and encouraged to express their views.

People were involved with the initial and on-going planning of their care. Their levels of independence and individual strengths and abilities were recorded. People were encouraged to maintain relationships with important people in their lives and to follow their hobbies and interests. The registered provider had a complaints policy which was available in audio format which made it accessible to the people who used the service. When complaints were received they were used to develop the service where possible as required.

People who lived in the home and staff contributed to the development and management of the service. Meetings were held regularly and people’s comments were listened to and implemented to improve the service when possible. A quality assurance system was in place that consisted of audits, checks and feedback from people who used the service. When shortfalls were identified action was taken to improve the level of service.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them 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 told us staff discussed their planned support with them to check it remained effective and met their needs. Risk assessments were completed to support people to develop their skills and to make sure staff support and supervision was provided as needed. There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living at the home and a manager was always available on call for further advice and support.

Staff involved other health and social care professionals in a timely way. We found that care records were accurate and reflected changes in people's needs. This made sure that people received the right care.

There was a stable staff team and some people had worked at the home for a long time. This meant that people received consistent support from staff members who knew them very well.

Effective management systems were in place to promote people's safety and welfare. Systems included people living in the service as far as practicable. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The service had policies and procedures in relation to Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We found relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

Is the service effective?

People's health care needs were assessed with them. People were involved in the development of their support plans and in reviews of their care. People told us they were included in any decisions about how their care and support was provided. This meant that people's wishes and views were being taken into account.

People told us they liked living at the home and staff helped them to develop their independent living skills. They said there was enough staff to spend time with them on an individual basis and enable them to follow their individual interests and pursuits.

Is the service caring?

During our visit we observed good professional relationships appeared to exist between staff and people living at the home. People described having good relationships with the staff and one person said the manager was 'good to us'.

Is the service responsive?

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

Records confirmed people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. People had access to activities that were important to them and were supported to maintain significant relationships.

Is the service well-led?

Staff had a clear understanding of the ethos of the home and the quality assurance processes that were in place. People told us they were asked for their feedback on the service they received. They confirmed they were listened to and their comments were acted upon.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities in promoting a good quality service.

We saw from people's care plans that people were supported to live as independently as possible. The home had carried out a sufficient assessment of the needs of each person, and kept this under review, to enable appropriate care and support to be given.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. The staff we spoke with had received training in safeguarding adults and said that they would tell the manager if they saw or heard anything inappropriate.

Records we looked at also confirmed that staff received good training in areas such as autism awareness, emergency first aid and safeguarding adults. Staff we spoke with told us that they received good support from the manager and they continued to receive good training from the organisation.

There were a range of effective quality management systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. People living at the home said that they were able to express their views and opinions and would raise concerns if they had them.