SeeAbility - Heather House Nursing Home

Updated 26 April 2018

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 26 February 2018 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of two inspectors. Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give us some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make.

We reviewed the information we held about the service and notifications we had received. This included statutory notifications from the provider that they are required to send us by law about specific events that occur at the service.

During the inspection, we spoke to two people who were able to speak to us. For other people who had complex communication needs we observed their care and support, their interactions with staff and we asked for feedback about the service from eight relatives. We spoke to the registered manager, a deputy manager, deputy activity organiser, administrator, a nurse and three support workers. We looked at a range of records during our inspection. This included four care plans, three staff files, training records, meeting minutes and other records relating to the management of the service. We contacted two healthcare professionals that have been working with the service recently.

Updated 26 April 2018

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 26 February 2018. At our last inspection we found whilst the service was good overall however, improvement was needed to some care plans and quality monitoring checks. At this inspection we found the service had made the improvement required.

See Ability - Heather House Nursing Home 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 home can accommodate up to 16 people. Accommodation is provided in two bungalows side by side that are joined with use of a communal dining area. Accommodation is all on one level and provides nursing care for young adults with a physical disability, learning disability, sensory impairment and autism. The service specialised in providing care and support to young people with Juvenile Batten Disease. The accommodation is set in a wooded site on the outskirts of Tadley. There were 16 people living at the service at the time of our inspection. Each person had their own room and bathroom. Heather House is on the same site as other services that the provider manages.

Attached to the home via a linked walkway was a purpose built and designed resource centre. This was available for the sole use of people living on the site but mainly used by people living at Heather House. Within this resource centre was a hydrotherapy pool, a large adapted kitchen area, an interactive suite which could be used for sensory activity, a quiet lounge and other large rooms that were used for activity such as art therapy or music therapy.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

Medicines were managed safely. Nurses were responsible for all administration of medicines at the service and all medicines management. We observed a registered nurse on part of a medicine round and their practice was seen to be safe.

There were sufficient staff on duty to provide care and support to meet people’s needs. There was a registered nurse on duty at all times, two during the day and one at night. Staff worked well as a team to make sure people’s needs were met safely and appropriately.

Risks had been assessed and measures taken to keep people safe. If people had epilepsy there was guidance on how to support people if they had a seizure and there were descriptions of seizures for each person.

Staff were recruited safely with pre-employment checks carried out prior to them starting employment. Staff knew how to recognise different kinds of potential abuse and understood the procedures to follow to report their concerns.

Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals to promote people’s well-being and make sure health needs were monitored.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Where people had their liberty restricted, the service had completed the related assessments and decisions had been properly taken. Staff had been trained and understood the general requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

Meal times were a social occasion with sufficient quantities of food and drinks available. Where people needed support to eat this was provided by staff who maintained people’s dignity throughout the meal time.

Staff were supported and had access to a range of training in a variety of areas. Staff understood and knew the people they were supporting, some had worked together for many years. New staff had an induction and had monthly supervisions throughout their probation period. All staff had regular supervision with their line managers which was an opportunity to discuss any concerns, training needs or any other support required.

Visitors were welcomed at any time and people were supported to maintain relationships with their friends and family. There was accommodation on site for families who had travelled to visit their relatives. People were supported to share photos and videos of themselves doing various activity with their families.

There was a structured activity programme which included therapy such as hydrotherapy, physiotherapy, music, arts and crafts and sessions in an interactive suite using touch screen technology and sensory equipment.

Communication between the management team, staff, people living at the service and families was effective and regular. The service had a complaints policy and procedure. People and their families were supported to raise concern if they wanted to and were confident their issues would be dealt with in a timely way.

We observed a positive person-centred culture at the service, people were treated with respect and their dignity was promoted and maintained. All of the management team role modelled good practice by taking time to work side by side with support workers at times. The registered manager was a specialist in the care and support of people with Juvenile Batten Disease.

The regional head of operations visited regularly and completed quality and safety audits. In addition the service also completed monthly audits in a range of areas. This meant the service was continually monitoring quality and safety to make improvement.