Archived: Hope House

Hope House is a purpose built care home located in a residential area in Clayton Le Moors close to local amenities. The home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care and nursing care for up 42 people. Accommodation is offered in single rooms on both floors of the home.

At our last inspection in April 2016 we rated the service ‘Good’. However, we identified one breach of the regulations. This was because the provider had failed to operate a safe system in relation to the handing of medicines. Following the inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when, to improve the key question of ‘Safe’ to at least good. At this inspection, we found the provider had made the necessary improvements to the way medicines were managed.

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.

Required improvements had been made to the way medicines were handled in the service. We noted minor issues regarding the recording of when prescribed creams had been administered. However, there was no negative impact on people who lived in the home and the registered manager took immediate action to rectify the issues found.

People told us they were safe in Hope House and that staff were kind, caring and respectful towards them; our observations during the inspection supported this view.

Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from the risk of abuse. They had a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences and supported people to be as independent as possible.

Staff had been safely recruited. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to be able to meet people’s needs in a timely manner and to spend time with people throughout the day.

Risks to people’s health, safety and welfare were managed well. People were cared for in a safe and clean environment.

The staff team received appropriate support and training and felt valued and respected by the registered manager.

People enjoyed a varied diet and changes in their health were monitored and acted on.

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.

Each person had a series of care plans related to their individual needs; these provided clear guidance on how their needs and preferences would be met. People were supported to be as independent as possible.

People's rights to privacy, dignity, independence and choice were respected; communication was good between people who lived in the home, relatives and staff.

A range of activities were provided to promote people’s sense of well-being. People had opportunities to provide feedback on the care they received.

Staff told us they enjoyed working in the home. All the staff we spoke with demonstrated a commitment to providing high quality care to people.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. The managers in the service had a clear drive for continuous service improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Hope House is registered to provide care for up to 42 people. The home is registered with the Commission to provide nursing or personal care for older people, physical disability or people living with a dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 38 people in receipt of care from the provider.

The registration requirements for the provider stated the home should have a registered manager in place. There was a registered manager in post on the day of our inspection. 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 using the service we spoke with told us they felt safe in the home and staff were aware of the procedure to take if abuse was suspected.

We saw staff had access to relevant details of medication information and checks on numbers of controlled medications were completed accurately. However we identified concerns relating to the storage of medicines. This was because the medication room was left unlocked and the keys to the controlled drug cupboard were left in the lock.

Staff were recruited safely and records included appropriate checks on them as well as proof of identity to ensure they were appropriate for the role they were employed to undertake.

We spoke with people living in the home as well as visitors who told us they were happy with the food on offer to them. We observed staff supporting people with their meals in a timely manner and engaging with them in conversation that supported a positive dining experience.

We observed staff asking permission before they undertook any action with people who used the service and we saw evidence of obtained consent in peoples care files.

Staff we spoke with were aware of Deprivation of Liberty and Mental Capacity Act. We saw evidence of completed applications that were waiting for authorisation from the local authority to ensure people were protected from unlawful restrictions.

We spoke with people who used the service about the care they received. They told us, “The staff are wonderful I am happy here.” Staff were observed delivering care in an appropriate and timely manner. They responded to buzzers and it was clear they had a good understanding of people’s individual needs.

We saw people living in the home were treated with dignity and respect and they told us staff were respectful and kind to them. We saw evidence of the use of signage that advised when care delivery was taking place so that people’s privacy was maintained in their bedrooms during this time.

People using service and relatives told us decisions about their care were discussed with them and that they were happy with the care that they received. We saw evidence of individualised care planning in place and this included evaluations of the care delivered. We were told reviews on care files were completed and the registered manager checked people’s records once these were completed.

There was detailed information on the activities taking place and we saw evidence of a comprehensive list of activities including a record of those who had taken part in them. We saw people who used the service were included in a group forum to discuss what activities they would like to be offered in the home.

We received positive feedback about the registered manager in post from staff, visitors and people who used the service.

There was evidence of up to date quality monitoring taking place. Audits on people’s health welfare and safety were being carried out with actions taken to resolve any issues identified. This provided the registered manager with good oversight in relation to the operation of the home.

Staff we spoke with confirmed supervisions were taking place and we saw completed supervision records in staff files. The registered manager told us she completed spot check at the home during the night and weekend and no concerns had been identified in the delivery of the care people received.

We identified a breach of regulation relating to medications storage and recording.

We found that suitable arrangements were in place for the safe keeping and handling of medicines.

We noted that all members of staff received the training they needed in order to provide safe and effective care for people using the service.

We saw that systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. There was evidence to demonstrate that people were regularly consulted about all aspects of the care and facilities provided at the home.