Conquest House

Updated 24 December 2020

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 care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 02 December 2020 and was unannounced.

Updated 24 December 2020

Conquest House is a ‘care home’. 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.

The care home accommodates 10 people in the main part of the house and one person in a self-contained flat within the same building. The home provides care and support to people with autism, learning disabilities and mental health conditions. Nursing care is not provided.

The unannounced inspection took place on 13 November and 11 December 2017.

At the time of the inspection there was a registered manager. However they were no longer working at Conquest House. A new manager had been appointed and was in the process of applying to become the registered manager. 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.

Staff had taken action to minimise the risks to people. Risk assessments identified risks and identified how to reduce them where possible. Staff had been assessed as competent to administer medication. Staff followed the correct procedures when administrating, recording and storing medication so that people received their medication as prescribed. Staff were aware of the procedures to follow if they thought anyone had been harmed. Information was not always available about people’s history or mental health support needs.

Staff were only employed after they completed a thorough recruitment procedure. There were enough staff on shift to ensure that people had their needs met in a timely manner. Staff received the training they required to meet people’s needs and were supported in their roles.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The provider had completed capacity assessments and DoLS applications. The provider could demonstrate how they supported people to make decisions about their care and the principles of the MCA were being followed.

Staff were kind and caring when working with people. They knew people well and were aware of their history, preferences, likes and dislikes. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and promoted.

Staff monitored people’s health and welfare needs and acted on issues identified. People had been referred to healthcare professionals when needed. People were provided with a choice of food and drink that they enjoyed. People were given the right amount of support to enable them to eat and drink.

There was a varied programme of activities including in-house group activities, one-to-one activities, entertainers and trips out. Staff supported people to maintain their interests and their links with the local community to promote social inclusion.

Care plans gave staff the majority of information they required to meet people’s care and support needs. People received support in the way that they preferred and met their individual needs.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people and their relatives felt confident to raise any concerns either with the staff or manager. Complaints had been dealt with appropriately.

There was an effective quality assurance process in place which included obtaining the views of people that lived in the home and their relatives and the staff. Where needed action had been taken to make improvements to the service being offered.