Archived: Heather House

We last inspected Heather House in November 2015. At that inspection we found the service was not meeting all of its legal requirements with regard to staffing levels, people receiving a choice of food and meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. At this inspection we found that action had been taken to meet the relevant legal requirements.

Heather House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 13 adults who have a learning disability. This includes care for one person who is supported by staff in a bungalow which is separate from the main building. Nursing care is not provided.

A registered manager was in place. 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.

People were protected as staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse. Staff were aware of the whistle blowing procedure which was in place to report concerns and poor practice. There were enough staff available to provide individual care to people. Arrangements were in place to handle people’s monies safely. Systems were in place to ensure the home was well maintained and a programme of refurbishment was planned to take place around the building.

Staff received opportunities for training to meet peoples' care needs and in a safe way. A system was in place for staff to receive supervision and appraisal and there were robust recruitment processes used when staff were employed. The registered manager and staff were meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and best interest decision making, when people were unable to make decisions themselves.

Staff knew the people they were supporting well and we observed that care was provided with patience and kindness and people’s privacy and dignity were respected. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care.

People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received care and treatment. Staff followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the treatment they needed. People received their medicines in a safe and timely way. People who used the service received a varied diet and had food and drink to meet their needs.

People were provided with opportunities to follow their interests and hobbies and they were introduced to new activities. They were supported to contribute and to be part of the local community.

People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. They were supported to maintain some control in their lives. They were given information in a format that helped them to understand if they did not read. This encouraged their involvement in every day decision making.

There was regular consultation with people and/or family members and their views were used to improve the service. A complaints procedure was available and written in a way to help people understand if they did not read. People we spoke with said they knew how to complain but they hadn’t needed to.

The registered provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided. We have made a recommendation that satisfaction surveys used to collect people’s views about the service should be developed to ensure they reflect people’s priorities about the service they receive or would like to receive.

People were offered a choice of suitable and nutritious foods and drinks, in sufficient quantities to meet their needs. People received the support they needed to eat their food and to drink.

The home was clean and hygienic throughout. Staff said they had been told what measures they should take to prevent the spread of infection. They said they had access to the personal protective equipment they needed to keep themselves and others safe.

People who used the service received care in premises that were safe and promoted their wellbeing. The premises were suitably maintained and the standard of decoration was good. People were safe because arrangements had been made to check equipment was safe to be used.

People who used the service were safe because there were sufficient staff to meet their needs.

People received personalised care and support and were assisted, through individual care planning, to maintain or develop their life skills and to access a range of activities in their local community.

We found that medicines were handled appropriately and all staff involved in administering medication had completed safe handling of medicines training.

We found that appropriate checks were undertaken before new staff began to work with people who used the service.

We found that information about how to complain was made available in a format appropriate to people's needs. People were aware of the complaints system and knew how to complain.