Little Heath Court

Updated 8 March 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 was unannounced and took place on 12 December 2017. It was completed by one inspector.

We reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR).This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We looked at all the information we have collected about the service. This included the previous inspection report and notifications the registered manager had sent us. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law.

We looked at paperwork for three people who live in the service assisted by their nominated key workers. This included support plans, daily notes and other documentation, such as medication records. In addition, we looked at records related to the running of the service. These included a sample of health and safety checks, quality assurance, staff and training records.

During our inspection we observed care and support in communal areas of the home. We interacted with all eight people who live in the home. People had very limited verbal communication but were able to express their feelings by facial expression and body language. This was interpreted by staff who knew them well. We spoke with all staff on duty during the inspection and three in private. In addition, we spent time with the registered manager who clearly knew the service and the people living there extremely well. A recent quality assurance visit had been undertaken by the local authority in which the service is situated and we had access to the report. We arranged for all staff employed at the service to be given the opportunity to provide information via email about the quality of the care and the support they received from management and the provider. We received three responses. We requested information from professionals involved with the service and received one response. However, the service provided us with comments they had received from visiting professionals which they had collated using a specially adapted form for the purpose. We had email feedback from five relatives of people living in the home.

Updated 8 March 2018

Little Heath Court is a care home without nursing which is registered to provide a service for up to eight people with learning disabilities and associated physical disabilities. Some people had other associated difficulties such as being on the autistic spectrum. It is a single storey building with an annexe and enclosed gardens. At the time of the inspection there were eight people living at the service, seven in the main house and one in the self-contained annexe.

The service is required to have a registered manager. There was a registered manager in post who had been registered to manage the service since May 2017. 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.

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 12 December 2017.

At the last inspection in October 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated good.

The service remained safe. People’s safety was contributed to by staff who had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and health and safety policies and procedures. Staff understood how to protect people and who to alert if they had any concerns. General risks and risks related to the needs of individual people were identified and appropriate action was taken to reduce them.

There were enough staff on duty at all times to meet people’s diverse, individual needs safely. The service had a stable staff team. When new staff were recruited they had systems in place to ensure, that as far as possible, they were safe and suitable to work with people. People were given their medicines safely, at the right times and in the right amounts by trained and competent staff.

The service remained effective. Staff were well-trained and able to meet people’s health and well-being needs. They were able to respond effectively to people’s current and changing needs. The service sought advice from and worked with health and other professionals to ensure they met people’s needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The service continued to be caring. The dedicated, attentive and knowledgeable staff team provided care with kindness and respect. Individualised care planning ensured people’s equality and diversity was respected. People were provided with a wide variety of activities, according to their needs, abilities, health and preferences.

The service was rated outstanding in responsive. We noted considerable and sustained improvements in the overall responsiveness to people’s needs and preferences. In particular the communication needs of people were understood and there was a consistent response to people's individual communication needs. Imaginative ways had been sought to assist people to communicate more effectively including the use of assistive technology. Some people had experienced significant and exemplary enhancements to their quality of life experiences.

The service was very well led by a registered manager who was committed to enabling people to live their lives to the full and to provide a safe and enabling environment which people called their home. The registered manager received regular praise and positive feedback from staff, relatives and professionals. There was a strong emphasis on team working and staff confirmed they worked well together. They involved people and their relatives in contributing to all aspects of the service and sought views and feedback in order to improve and develop. The registered manager and provider continually monitored the quality of the service and made improvements where needed.