We carried out a review of the data available to us about SignHealth Polestar on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about SignHealth Polestar, you can give feedback on this service.
SignHealth Polestar has six self-contained flats and communal areas for people. Support and/ or personal care is provided to people within the person's flat. People who use the service may need support or care due to sensory impairments, mental ill-health needs or learning disability.
People's experience of using the service:
• People were kept safe and secure from risk of harm. Potential risks to people had been assessed and managed appropriately by the provider. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed and were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to ensure that risk of harm was minimised.
• Staff had been recruited appropriately and had received relevant training so they were able to support people with their individual care and support needs.
• Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support. People were 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.
• People were treated with kindness and compassion. People’s rights to privacy were respected by the staff who supported them and their dignity was maintained. People were supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care and support needs.
• People’s choices and independence were respected and promoted. Staff responded appropriately to people’s support needs. People received care from staff that knew them well.
• People using the service were confident about approaching the registered manager if they needed to. The provider had effective auditing systems in place to monitor the effectiveness and quality of service provision. The views of people on the quality of the service was gathered and used to support service development.
Rating at last inspection:
At our last inspection in February 2016 we rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated as Good overall.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
At our last inspection on 8 August 2014, we found that the provider was meeting all of the requirements of the regulations we reviewed.
Sign Health Polestar is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for six people with a sensory impairment and may also have a learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were six people living at the location. People all lived in their own individual flats within the location but had access to a communal living and dining area if required.
At the time of our inspection 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.
People were safe and secure. Relatives believed their family members were kept safe. Risks to people had been assessed appropriately. Staff understood the different types of abuse and knew what action they would take if they thought a person was at risk of harm. The provider had processes and systems in place that kept people safe and protected them from the risk of harm
Staff had been recruited appropriately and had received relevant training so that they were able to support people with their individual needs. People safely received their medicines as prescribed to them.
Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support. Staff understood the circumstances when the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) should be followed.
People were supported to have food that they enjoyed and meal times were flexible to meet people’s needs.
People were supported to stay healthy and accessed health care professionals as required.
People were treated with kindness and compassion and there was positive communication and interaction with staff.
People’s right to privacy was promoted and people’s independence was encouraged where possible.
People received care from staff that knew them well. People benefitted from opportunities to take part in activities that they enjoyed and what was important to them.
Staff were aware of the signs that would indicate that a person was unhappy, so that they could take appropriate action. Information was available around the home in easy read formats for people.
The provider had management systems in place to audit, assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.
Is the service safe?
People were treated with dignity and respect by staff. Before entering people's flats staff waited to be invited in. People told us they felt safe and we observed a relaxed atmosphere. We found that people received their medicines as prescribed by the doctor and staff supported them with their self-medicating practices. There were risk management plans in place for people and for general health and safety, such as the premises. We looked at how new staff had been recruited. This showed us the provider had carried out all of the necessary checks before staff began working in the home.
CQC monitors the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Some relevant staff had been trained and training was arranged for other staff to attend so they would understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs had been assessed and support plans were in place. We saw evidence that people had agreed their support plans and regular reviews of them. Staff encouraged and supported people in developing living skills and in leading meaningful and enriched lifestyles. We saw that staff respected people's individual cultures. We overheard people making choices about what they wanted to do and staff respected their right to independence. One person told us: 'I have learnt how to look after myself. They (staff) have been teaching me little things.' The people we spoke said they received the standard of care and support that matched their needs. Staff had received training to meet the specific needs of the people living in their flats within the service. Arrangements were made so that staff could accompany people in attending GP and hospital appointments.
Is the service caring?
The people we spoke with were positive about the way they were cared for and supported. A person commented about their care and support: 'Staff come here (into their own flat) and support me.' People were cared for by kind and attentive staff. Staff encouraged and supported people in maintaining their independence. Staff were aware of people's rights and respected decisions people made. Staff told us they were making arrangements to take people to Blackpool. We observed staff offering appropriate support to people. People were supported by a team of health and social care professionals who worked closely with staff in providing people's care needs.
Is the service responsive?
Talking with staff and looking at records confirmed that staff acted on the recommendations made by professionals. People were supported in accessing the community. One person told us they sometimes asked staff to accompany them to visit the local cinema. Records confirmed people's preferences and interests had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. We saw the complaints procedure was written in a way that people could understand it. The complaints procedure was made available to each person who was using the service. The manager told us they had not received a formal complaint since the last inspection.
Is the service well led?
The service was developing a system to ask people who used the service, relatives and staff for their opinions about the standards of care and support that was provided. Regular audits had been carried out that enabled staff to make changes that could be of benefit to the people who used the service. The audit tools included improvements that staff had made. A senior member of staff regularly visited the service and carried out a range of audits. A report was developed and given to the manager so they could make further improvements. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and the ethos of the service. Staff received regular supervisions by senior staff to ensure they remained competent for their roles.
We found that people who lived there were treated with respect and dignity. One person told us, 'Staff always show respect to me.'
We saw that people's independence was promoted by staff. One staff member told us, 'We aim to help people develop their skills to be as independent as possible.'
People's needs had been assessed and support plans gave staff the information they needed to meet peoples' identified needs.
We found that people were not always protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.
We found that the premises were suitable for the people that lived there. One person told us, 'I like my flat and living here.'
We saw that systems were not always in place to monitor the quality of the services provided so that actions, when needed, could be made to make improvements.
We saw that the communal areas of home were clean and tidy.This meant that people were provided with a pleasant place to spend their time.
People were involved in their care and were encouraged to develop communication skills so that they developed their independent living skills. One person told us, "I like it here and I have made progress".
We saw the organisations safeguarding policy and a poster was displayed, so staff had the information they need so that they knew what action to take if there was an allegation of abuse. One person told us, "I have no worries here".
We saw that staff were supported in their role.This meant that staff members had the skills and knowledge to provide support to people. One staff member told us, "There is an amazing ethos here and working here has developed me as a person as well".
We saw that systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service being provided.