Archived: Fallings Heath House

This inspection took place on 6 August 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 6 January 2014 the service was meeting all legal requirements within the regulations.

Fallings Heath House is a residential home providing respite accommodation for people with physical and learning disabilities. The service is registered to provide accommodation for up to 16 people however, there were five people receiving support at the time of the inspection. The service provides short stay respite accommodation that normally ranges from one to 14 nights at a time. The provider had a registered manager in post at the service. 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 told us that they felt safe at the service. Staff could identify signs of potential abuse and knew what to do if they had concerns about people’s safety and well being. Staff told us that they knew how to ‘whistle blow’ and report concerns to external agencies and they would feel confident in doing so. People were supported to minimise any potential risks to their safety and well being by staff who managed risk without imposing unnecessary restrictions. People were protected from harm by the safe storage of medicines within the home. People told us that they received their medicines when they needed them and staff could describe people’s needs.

Sufficient numbers of staff working on each shift meant that people’s needs were met in a proactive way. People received individual support when they needed it. The registered manager understood the requirements of safe recruitment and managing people effectively. People told us that staff were well trained and able to support them effectively. Staff told us that they received specialist training when required to support people with specific needs such as epilepsy. We saw staff using skills learned to support people effectively. Staff understood how to uphold people’s human rights and support people to consent to the care they received.

People enjoyed the food and drink that they received and their personal preferences were taken into account. People were able to help themselves to snacks and drinks during the day. We saw that people were supported to access outside healthcare professionals when this was required. Staff monitored people’s individual health needs and took action when needed.

People told us that staff were caring. We observed caring interactions between staff and people staying at the service. People’s preferences were respected and staff understood the details of people’s personal history and background. We saw that people were fully involved in decisions about their care. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and we saw that people’s independence was promoted while people were given support. Relatives told us that they were fully involved in people’s care during their stay and we saw this reflected in people’s plans of care.

We found that people were able to enjoy a range of activities, leisure and work opportunities that were individual to people’s preferences and needs. People were involved in the review of their own care plans and their changing needs were identified by staff, communicated to the staff team and implemented.

People and their relatives told us that they knew how to make a complaint if required. We were told by people and relatives that the service proactively sought feedback. We saw that improvements to the service and people’s care had been made as a result of feedback received.

Record keeping and quality monitoring was not always robust throughout the service. The Human Resources (HR) department were not able to produce details of background checks completed for all staff members. We also found that records relating to people’s training were not always available. Medicines audits were not detailed and did not always identify errors in record keeping. Health and safety audits and quality assurance were comprehensive, including the review of care plans following accidents and incidents.

People were supported by a committed staff team who spoke positively about the management of the service. People and their relatives told us that management were approachable and felt that their views would be heard. We were told by staff that the manager’s door was always open and that they were encouraged to challenge poor practice.