All inspections: Harrogate Home Support Service

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.

We undertook an announced inspection of Harrogate Home Support Service on 16 April 2015. We told the manager two days before our visit that we would be coming. Harrogate Home Support Service provides personal care and support for six people with a visual impairment and other disabilities. The agency operates from an office on the same site as Henshaws College Harrogate. The registered provider of the service is Henshaws Society for Blind People.

Harrogate Home Support Service supports people to live more independently in the community either in Henshaws own Supported Living houses or with tenants living with other housing providers. When we visited the service was providing care and support to six people, all of whom were over 18 years of age.

At our last inspection on 23 July 2013 the service was meeting the regulations that were assessed.

The service has a registered manager. 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.

Effective management systems were in place to protect people and to promote their safety and welfare.

Staff including ancillary staff had received training on adult safeguarding and child protection procedures. We found that staff knew about the local safeguarding protocols and had followed them in practice.

Steps were taken to identify potential risks to people who used the service and to minimise identified risks without applying undue restrictions on people.

Safe recruitment processes were being followed. We found that appropriate systems were in place to examine the competence, experience, qualifications, and attitudes of potential staff in relation to working with young people and adults. People who used the service were encouraged to take an active part in the recruitment process and could exercise choice and control over the staff who supported them. Staffing rotas were flexible to meet people’s individual needs and preferences.

Staff received regular training including training in the safe administration of medicines to enable them to increase their knowledge and skills and provide the right care to people that met their needs.

We found that appropriate arrangements were in place to train staff and support them to understand their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. However, staff told us in their surveys that they would like further training in this area to enhance their understanding. We have recommended the provider makes sure that all staff receive updated training on the MCA as part of their training and development plan.

Detailed pre admission assessments were completed to ensure that staff were able to meet people’s identified care needs. Support plans contained people’s personal care and support needs and these were kept under review. People were supported to eat and drink according to their support plan.

Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and liaised with other healthcare professionals to promote people’s independence and wellbeing.

People’s views were taken into account in the running of the service. People were supported to access the community and follow their own interests and pursuits. This reduced the risk of people becoming socially isolated.

People had opportunity to feedback their views on the service through review meetings, ‘house’ and ‘tenant’ meetings and in customer service surveys. Appropriate quality assurance systems were in place to ensure that the agency provided care to people in a safe and effective way.