Jubilee House

Updated 14 June 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 checked 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.

The inspection took place on the 26 April 2017. The inspection was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector and one inspector from the hospitals mental health inspection team.

Prior to our inspection, we checked all the information which we had received about the service including any notifications which the provider had sent us. Statutory notifications are notifications of deaths and other incidents that occur within the service, which when submitted enable the Commission to monitor any issues or areas of concern.

We contacted Durham local authority safeguarding and contracts and commissioning teams prior to our inspection. We also contacted Healthwatch. Healthwatch is the local consumer champion for health and social care services. We used their feedback to inform the planning of this inspection. We also obtained feedback from other three professionals working with the service such as care co-ordinators and community nurses.

The registered manager completed a provider information return (PIR) prior to the inspection. A PIR is a form which asks the provider to give some key information about their service; how it is addressing the five questions and what improvements they plan to make.

On the day of our inspection, we spoke with five people currently using the service. We also talked with the registered manager, two crisis team managers, three support staff and one relative. We examined two people’s care plans. We also checked records relating to staff and the management of the service.

Updated 14 June 2017

The inspection took place on the 26 April 2017. The inspection was unannounced and was carried out by one adult social care inspector and one inspector from the mental health hospitals team.

We last inspected the service on 27 and 28 February 2015 and rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the service remained good and met all the fundamental standards we inspected against.

Durham and Darlington Crisis Recovery House is an NHS service and provides short term support for people experiencing a crisis in their mental health. The local mental health crisis nursing team oversee all support provided and the service is led by a registered manager with support provided by support time recovery workers.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were safeguarding procedures in place. Staff were knowledgeable about what action they should take if abuse was suspected. The local authority safeguarding team informed us that were no safeguarding concerns regarding the service.

The premises were clean. Checks and tests had been carried out to ensure that the premises were safe. People were supported to manage their own medicines and lockable facilities were in place in each room. The service had clear policies and procedures in place to ensure people were assessed and supported to do this safely.

We found that recruitment checks were carried out to ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staffing levels were provided to meet the needs of people using the service. Due to the nature of the service and fluctuating levels of people using the service, we saw that measures were in place to source additional staffing through the registered provider if needed. We observed staff carry out their duties in calm unhurried manner and people accessed the local community. Records confirmed that training was available to ensure staff were suitably skilled. Staff were supported though an appraisal and supervision system.

The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Part of the assessment criteria for this service was that people had capacity to make their own decisions and were free to leave the service at any time. Therefore the service did not have any people subject to DoLS authorisations.

People's nutritional needs were met and they were supported to access healthcare services when required.

We observed positive interactions between staff and people who lived at the service. Staff promoted people's privacy and dignity. There were systems in place to ensure people were involved in their care and support and treatment.

Care plans were in place which detailed the care and support to be provided for people. These were written and overseen by the crisis team of nurses and therapists based at West Park Hospital

People were supported to maintain their links with families and their community mental health support teams. We saw the service provided support for issues such as housing and staff were knowledgeable about signposting people to a range of services that they may need. There was a complaints procedure in place. Feedback systems were in place to obtain people’s views.

The registered provider was meeting the conditions of their registration. They were submitting notifications in line with legal requirements. They were displaying their previous CQC performance ratings at the service and on their website.