Archived: Recovery House

Updated 30 January 2015

We carried out an inspection at Recovery House on 30 July 2014. This inspection was undertaken by one inspector and was unannounced. This meant that the provider and staff did not know we were coming.

Before this inspection, the provider completed a 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 also reviewed the information we held about the service. Providers are required to notify the Care Quality Commission about events and incidents that occur at the service which included injuries to people receiving care and safeguarding incidents. We refer to these as notifications. We used this information to plan what areas we were going to focus on during our inspection.

At this inspection we spent time with the three people who used the service and observed the support that people received to meet their different needs over the course of the day. We also spent some time with the registered manager and three members of staff who told us about people’s support needs and what the service offered people. After this inspection we received comments from one health care professional and two social care professionals to find out about their views about the support and treatment people received.

We looked in detail at the care records of two people who used the service and at records maintained by the provider about staffing, training and monitoring the quality of the service.

Updated 30 January 2015

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, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection was unannounced, which meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming. Recovery House is a care home that provides social care support for up to four people. Care and support is provided to people with mental health needs and enables people to regain independent living skills. At the time of our inspection three people used the service.

There is a registered manager in post. We saw that they provided good leadership, was proud of the service that was offered to people and supported the staff. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider.

People were positive about how they felt safe and protected from harm whilst they recovered and felt better. We saw staff assisted and supported people with kindness whilst enabling people to do everyday tasks and following their interests in the community. People told us they felt more confident to move to more independent living due to the support they received.

Staff knew how to identify harm and abuse and knew how to act to protect people from the risk of harm which included unsafe staff practices. There were also a number of arrangements in place to promote people’s safety and support people in the right way at the right time. We saw that there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff who had received specific training to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and it was positive people were supported to make decisions about their lives. This included the reasons for being at the service and the goals they wanted to achieve. At the time of our inspection people were able to make decisions. We saw people were supported by staff where required to make their own healthy meals. People who were able to take their own medicines did this with staff support as part of people keeping their skills.

We did not observe people’s liberty being restricted. The registered manager and staff knew how to make the appropriate applications under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to protect people from unnecessary restrictions.

Links to community professionals and services in the community were promoted so that people benefited from their needs being assessed and met. People told us this enabled them to recover well. Health and social care professionals told us that it is a safe place where people can become well and is more homely than people going into other community settings such as hospitals. People told us that they were happy to be at the service until they were ready to move on.

Staff showed they had the knowledge to protect people from the risk of infections. The premises were checked so that any repairs and or adaptations were made where needed to meet people’s needs.

The provider had responsive systems in place to monitor and review people’s experiences and complaints so that improvements were made.

Arrangements were in place to monitor and check the quality of support people received. There was evidence that learning from incidents took place and any changes needed were put in place to continually improve the service people received.