We carried out a review of the data available to us about Althea Park House 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 Althea Park House, you can give feedback on this service.
Althea Park House is a care home with nursing providing therapeutic care and support to seven people with an eating disorder at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to ten people. People are accommodated in one adapted building and one purpose-built building called The Anchor.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Systems were in place to protect people against identified risks if they left the care home. Staff were confident they had the knowledge and skills to keep people safe during these incidents.
Risks to people were assessed by a clinical team which could include professionals from a person’s funding authority. Care plans and risk assessments provided clear guidelines for staff to follow to keep people safe.
Where safety incidents occurred, these were analysed for any lessons to be learned. People’s risks were reviewed with health professionals and action to be taken to keep people safe.
We were assured the service was following safe infection prevention and control procedures to keep people safe.
Why we inspected
We undertook this targeted inspection to check on a specific concern we had about some recent incidents where people had left the care home and placed themselves at risk of harm. The overall rating for the service has not changed following this targeted inspection and remains Good.
CQC have introduced targeted inspections to follow up on Warning Notices or to check specific concerns. They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.
We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from these concerns.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.
Please see the safe section of this full report. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Althea Park House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Althea Park House is a care home with nursing providing therapeutic care and support to eight people with an eating disorder at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to ten people. People are
accommodated in one adapted building (referred to in this report as the main house) and one purpose built building called The Anchor.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Systems were in place to protect people against identified risks from self-injury. Risks to people from self-injury were assessed by a clinical team which could include professionals from a person’s funding authority. Care plans provided clear guidelines which staff were able to describe to help manage this behaviour. People were respected as adults and involved in discussions and devising enabling plans about how they want to access the community comfortably but also promoting safety.
Where safety incidents occurred, these were analysed for any lessons to be learned, people’s risks were reviewed with health professionals and action to be taken to keep people safe. Staff knew people well and were knowledgeable and confident to manage each person’s risk in relation to self-injury.
We were assured the service was following safe infection prevention and control procedures to keep people safe.
We found several examples of good infection control practices. This included; using an advocate to ensure people using the service had a voice when they had concerns about the impact of staff wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) during support given at meal times.
Why we inspected
We undertook this targeted inspection to check on a specific concern we had about some recent incidents of self-injurious behaviour. The overall rating for the service has not changed following this targeted inspection and remains Good.
CQC have introduced targeted inspections to follow up on Warning Notices or to check specific concerns. They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.
We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from these concerns.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.
Please see the safe section of this full report. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Althea Park House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Althea Park House is a care home with nursing providing therapeutic care and support to eight people with an eating disorder at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to ten people. People are accommodated in one adapted building (referred to in this report as the main house) and one purpose built building called The Anchor.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The service was outstandingly responsive to people’s individual beliefs, preferences and needs. Therapeutic care was delivered in line with the service’s highly person-centred ethos called ‘Therapy in the Living’ and we found staff worked creatively to incorporate people’s individual needs with their therapeutic programme. This supported people to establish a lifestyle that could be transferred to their home life on discharge and supported their recovery and community integration.
People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse and from risks from receiving care. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff. People’s medicines were safely managed.
We found the environment of the care home was clean, had been well maintained and was adapted for its purpose.
Staff received support to develop knowledge and skills for their role. There were arrangements in place for people and their representatives to raise concerns about the service.
People's individual needs and wishes were known to staff who had achieved positive relationships with them. People were involved in the planning and review of their care. People were supported to maintain contact with their relatives.
Within the structures and boundaries of therapeutic care, people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Quality monitoring systems were in operation. The registered manager was visible and accessible to people and their visitors.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Althea Park House is part of a group of specialist services which provides accommodation for up to seven young people with eating disorders. It is a division of Partnerships in Care 1 Limited, an organisation that provides specialist support to people with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection, there were six people living at Althea Park House.
There was a new manager working at Althea Park House. They told us they had been manager of the service for two months. An application had been received in respect of the new manager being registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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.’
The service was safe. Risk assessments were implemented and reflected the current level of risk to people. There were sufficient staffing levels to ensure safe care and treatment. The administration, recording and storage of medicine was safe. The manager took appropriate steps to ensure suitable people were employed to support people using the service.
People were receiving effective care and support. Staff received appropriate training which was relevant to their role. Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals. The service was adhering to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and where required the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
The service was caring. People and their relatives spoke positively about the staff at the home. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of respect and dignity and were observed providing care which promoted this.
The service was responsive. Care plans were person centred and provided sufficient detail to provide safe, high quality care to people. Care plans were reviewed and people were involved in the planning of their care. There was a robust complaints procedure in place and where complaints had been made, there was evidence these had been dealt with appropriately.
The service was well-led. Quality assurance checks and audits were occurring regularly and identified actions required to improve the service. Staff, people and their relatives spoke positively about the manager.
The provider had practices and procedures in place to obtain people's consent to care and treatment. Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.
We saw evidence that assessments of people's individual care needs had been undertaken by the multidisciplinary team. Care plans had been developed and included a summary of people's life history and medical conditions. Five people were out on a day trip to London and two other people decided not to speak with us.
People had individualised menu plans which were based on their needs which were weighed and calorie counted. People were given support, where necessary, to eat and drink sufficient amounts for their needs.
The provider had policies and procedures which we saw were available on the premises for the staff to follow to keep people free from risk and abuse. We found that three members of staff needed to have an up to date DBS check.
People were cared for by staff that were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. The staff team were longstanding with several years of experience in care and who were committed to providing specialist care to people.
We found that while some processes for monitoring the quality of the service provided to people living in the home were in place, the provider may wish to note people may not have the opportunity to give feedback about the quality of the service they had received.
We spoke with many of the staff over the two days of our visit. It was clear they were all 'proud' to work at Althea Park House. One member of staff described themselves as a 'fan of the service' being 'interested in the philosophy and way of working'. Another said they were 'proud to work' there reflecting on how good the service was and commenting there was 'more success than failure'. A further member of staff told us they 'really believe in the service that offers a warm environment for young people who are unable to live at home'.
Young people's independence was promoted. They were given keys to thier rooms so that they could keep their belongings safe and were involved in the running of the service and their own care and support.
One of the young people told us that meals were always on time and set out on their meal plan. An hour was allocated for mealtimes when young people sat together with staff. There was post meal support available for young people.
Young people were protected from the risk of abuse and from restrictions to their liberty.
There were systems in place to ensure that staff received appropriate training and support, to monitor the quality of the service and to respond to complaints.