17 November 2015
During a routine inspection
This inspection took place on 17 November 2015 and was unannounced. Since the last visit to the service in February 2014 the registered provider has merged with a similar charity and formed RNIB Charity.
Tate House is a care home and is owned by RNIB Charity. The service is registered to provide personal care for up to thirty-nine people who have a visual impairment, and those requiring personal care. The service is close to Harrogate town centre.
The service had a 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.
During the inspection there was a happy, friendly atmosphere and people who used the service were relaxed in the company of staff and others they lived with. People who used the service and staff told us they were very happy in the service.
People who used the service told us they felt safe and knew what to do if ever they felt unsafe. They were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines safely.
There were clear assessments about people’s ability to consent to care and make choices. Where people were unable to make their own decisions about their care needs we saw the service had recorded best interest decisions. These had involved the person, their families and any relevant health and social care professionals.
People who used the service were well cared for. Staff knew people very well and understood how to meet people’s needs. People were involved in making decisions about their care and were involved in the care planning process. People who used the service engaged in social activities which were person centred, this involved group activities and individual one to one sessions. Care was centred on the person.
Staff helped make sure people were safe. This involved having meetings with people and talking about how to stay safe and involved specialist input to make sure the environment was safe for those with a visual impairment. People who used the service helped to plan the menu and enjoyed the meals. They received good support to make sure their nutritional and health needs were met.
People who used the service told us staff were ‘very very kind, understood them and what they needed.’ Visitors also complimented the staff team. There were enough staff, and staff were skilled and experienced to meet people’s needs because they received appropriate training and support. Some training was due to be repeated but this was planned and in progress.
The fabric and décor in some parts of the service were looking tired and showing signs of wear and tear. We noted that funds had been set aside to carry out some redecoration before the Christmas period and that an on-going programme of redecoration and refurbishment was being planned.
The service had good management and leadership procedures. The management team promoted quality and safety and had good systems in place to help ensure this was achieved. They worked alongside staff and therefore knew what was happening in the service. People who used the service told us they knew ‘who was who’ and knew staff names. People had no concerns about the care and knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with the service provided.