Highgate Road

Highgate Road is a care home for people who may have a learning disability or autism. The service was registered for up to 6 people. At the time of our inspection 5 people lived at the service on a permanent basis and 1 person was in receipt of respite care.

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Right Support:

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and supported. Risks were assessed and managed to ensure people could safely participate in activities they enjoyed.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were able to receive visitors without restrictions in line with best practice guidance.

Right Care:

People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff and the provider operated safe recruitment processes for staff who they directly employed. Staff supported people in line with their individual preferences and agreed care plans.

People were supported to receive their medicines safely and were protected from the risk of infection as staff followed safe infection prevention and control practices.

Right Culture:

There was a positive and open culture at the service. Staff were involved in the running of the service and the provider worked in partnership with others to achieve good outcomes for people.

The quality of care was monitored and lessons were learned when things had gone wrong.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 9 November 2018).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service. We completed a focused inspection to review safe and well-led only.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Highgate Road on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Recommendations

We have made a recommendation in relation to the systems in place to ensure self-employed staff are suitable to work at the service.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

Highgate Road is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as 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.

Highgate Road accommodates up to six people in one large house. At the time of inspection, five people were living at the home.

The 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.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and roles and responsibilities had been re-organised since the last inspection to ensure that staff could spend more time with people. People looked happy and comfortable in the home and they had access to the right equipment to keep them safe.

Staff knew how to report concerns and had good knowledge of risk assessments to ensure their practice kept people safe. Medication was managed well by staff to ensure that people received the correct medication at the right time.

Staff received sufficient training to enable them to support people effectively and the service worked well with health care professionals to ensure that expert advice was obtained and followed on a day to day basis. People had access to health services when required.

People were supported to eat and drink well by providing food in line with individual preferences and people were supported to eat in their preferred way.

People were treated with kindness and respect by staff and were supported to express their views through different communication methods which were well known by staff. Staff enjoyed working with people and were motivated to provide a high quality service.

People were supported to keep in contact with families and others that were important to them.

People had the opportunity to take part in activities and holidays that they enjoyed and their individual needs and preferences were assessed carefully and met by the staff team. People had access to cultural and religious activities that were important to them.

There was a registered manager in post who was respected by staff and who knew people and the service well. A range of audits and spot checks were carried out to ensure quality was monitored and actions were taken to improve performance.

The service worked well in partnership with other agencies to provide people access to local services and opportunities in line with Registering the Right Support.

Highgate Road is a residential home for up to six people with disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were six people living at the service. The service supports people with a range of needs including; learning disabilities, physical disabilities and complex needs. People currently living at the service range from young adults through to older people and most had complex needs.

There was a manager in post. The manager was not yet registered with CQC. They had applied to register and their registration was in the process of being reviewed at the time of the inspection. 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 supported by sufficient numbers of staff to keep them safe from harm but not to protect their dignity and provide person centred care. People were supported by a staff team who could recognise signs of potential abuse and knew how to report concerns. People were protected by staff who understood risks to them and knew how to protect them from the risk of harm from accident and injury. People were supported by a staff team who had been recruited safely for their roles. People received their medicines as prescribed.

People were supported by a staff team who had mixed skill levels and abilities. Some care staff required further training to support people effectively in all areas. The management team recognised this and were developing training and support available to staff members.

People were supported in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). However, issues with records meant that the new manager did not always have the required knowledge of previous restrictions authorised for people under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were supported to have sufficient quantities to eat and drink. People’s day to day health was maintained and they were supported to access healthcare professionals when required.

People were supported by a care staff team who were kind and caring towards them. Staff knew how to protect people’s dignity. Staff knew people well and worked to encourage choices and promote independence. People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them.

People’s basic needs and preferences were meet by care staff. Care staff had a good knowledge of people and care plans were in place that reflected people’s needs and preferences. People were enabled to participate in activities and had access to the local community. People’s feedback was sought and complaints were addressed appropriately.

People were supported by a staff and management team who were committed to providing a good service and making improvements to the care provided. Staff mostly felt supported by the management team and felt involved in how the service was run.

A new quality assurance and governance system had been introduced that was successfully identifying many areas for improvement required within the service. Action was taken by management to make required improvements. Further development of this system was required to ensure that all issues and areas of risk to people were identified.

One person told us: 'it's very nice here'. We saw that care was planned and delivered to meet people's individual needs.

Although the activities plan was not up to date, the people who lived there were engaged with activities or out of the building shopping with staff support.

Meals offered met people's cultural dietary requirements and included five portions of fresh fruit or vegetables every day where possible. We saw one person make themselves a sandwich in the kitchen.

We had some concerns about the cleanliness of the home and effective prevention of infection. We discussed this with the manager who had arranged with the provider to make improvements immediately after our inspection.

We found that the service had an effective recruitment process for staff which ensured only staff suitable to work with this group of vulnerable people were employed.

We found that the service had an effective quality monitoring system for reviewing the care provided to people. We saw that people and those that mattered to them were encouraged to give their views about the service.