Archived: Harrogate Home Support Service

Updated 11 July 2017

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 took place on 6 June 2017 and was announced. We contacted the service on 31 May 2017 to give 48 hours’ notice of our visit, but this was delayed by agreement until the registered manager could be available.

The inspection was undertaken by an adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, including the Provider Information Return (PIR) which the provider completed before the inspection. The PIR 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 reviewed the information we held about the service, including the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales. We asked commissioners from the local authority for their feedback about the service. We considered responses to a survey completed by one service user and four members of staff. We used this information to plan the inspection.

On 6 June 2017 the inspector visited the service’s office and two supported living houses.

We spoke with the registered manager, three support staff, office staff and the nominated individual. A nominated individual is a senior person within the organisation, who can speak on behalf of the organisation and about the way the regulated activity is provided. We met the training officer and health and safety manager.

We reviewed care records for four people, and we looked at records relating to the management of the service such as recruitment records for three staff, quality audits, minutes of meetings, and the statement of purpose. We looked at the electronic training planner and supervision records for two staff. We met one person who used the service and observed the care they received.

After our visit to the agency office the expert by experience spoke with four relatives by telephone.

Updated 11 July 2017

Harrogate Home Support Service is registered to provide personal care to adults with a learning disability. People are supported by staff to live individually in their own homes or in small groups in independent supported living schemes. Different levels of support are provided over the 24 hour period according to people's requirements. At the time of our inspection 23 people were in receipt of a service, eight of whom were in receipt of a personal care service.

At the last inspection on 16 April 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

We found that the service had established processes to protect people from abuse and respond to concerns. Measures were in place to reduce identified risks and make sure people received safe care and support. The provider had recognised the need to review risk assessments to take account of people’s higher support needs and the additional risks this could pose in an emergency. They were undertaking a review of health and safety arrangements, including updated training for staff.

Robust recruitment procedures were followed to check the suitability of new staff. Established systems were in place to involve people who used the service in the recruitment processes. We discussed the ways this could be extended to include the views of people whose voices are less easily heard.

Sufficient staff were employed to support people in line with people’s assessed needs and agreed care package. The staff team was well trained and supervised to support their development.

People were appropriately supported to maintain their health and take their prescribed medicines. Staff assisted people with their dietary requirements and people were involved in the planning and preparation of their meals to the extent of their abilities.

In their feedback, we received varying views from the relatives we spoke with. Examples included the quality of activities and person-centred care provided. The provider had recognised the need to strengthen the quality monitoring processes to ensure the quality of the service remained under review and drive improvement. They were actively recruiting to a new quality assurance post in the organisation.

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.

There was a registered manager who regularly sought feedback from people and their families about their experiences.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.