• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Hannah Levy House Trust

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

15 Poole Road, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH2 5QR (01202) 765361

Provided and run by:
Hannah Levy House Trust

All Inspections

6 November 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Hannah Levy House Trust is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided. The home is registered to accommodate a maximum of 34 people who require personal care. The home does not provide nursing care, during this inspection there were 16 people living at Hannah Levy House Trust.

The provider is a charitable trust which is run by a board of trustees. Hannah Levy House provides care for Jewish people in a Kosher environment with facilities to meet their religious, spiritual and cultural needs.

We found the following examples of good practice.

• The service provided safe and effective ways for people to visit their relatives during the Covid-19 Pandemic. During the summer months the provider had bought a gazebo for the garden which allowed relatives a safe place to visit and spend time safely with their loved ones.

• Safe visits for family and friends had continued to be enabled during the wetter, colder winter months with the use of a dedicated room that could be accessed direct from the garden without the need for visitors to enter the home. This room was deep cleaned after every visit.

• A booking system was in place which ensured people received their visitors at a time that suited them. Visiting processes were in place to ensure the risk of infection was minimised. These processes followed current government guidance.

• The service had plentiful stocks of personal protective equipment (PPE) to enable staff to care for people safely. Hand sanitiser was available throughout the premises and PPE was available for people visiting the home if they did not have their own.

• The service was taking part in the whole home testing programme, this meant staff were tested for Covid-19 each week and residents were tested every 28 days.

• The service had divided their management team into separate ‘work bubbles’ to ensure consistency of care for people should a member of the management team test positive for Covid-19. Clear systems were in place to ensure staff isolated for the required period should they test positive for Covid-19.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

20 September 2018

During a routine inspection

Hannah Levy House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The home is registered to accommodate a maximum of 34 people who require personal care. There were 27 people living there at the time of our inspection. The home does not provide nursing care. The provider is a charitable trust which is run by a board of trustees. Hannah Levy House provides care for Jewish people in a Kosher environment with facilities to meet their religious, spiritual and cultural needs.

The home was led by 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.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Is the service safe?

People were protected from potential abuse and avoidable harm by staff who were knowledgeable about abuse and safeguarding procedures. Risks to people were managed so that the service was as safe as possible. There were enough appropriately qualified staff available on each shift to ensure people were cared and supported safely. Medicines were managed safely and effectively. People were protected by the prevention and control of infection. There was a system in place to review and learn from incidents when things went wrong.

Is the service effective?

Staff received training to meet the needs of people accommodated. People told us staff were skilled and well trained. Staff said they were well supported to carry out their roles and told us everyone worked very well together as a team for the benefit of the people. People’s needs were fully assessed and they had access to the specialist health care professionals who worked closely with the staff at the service. 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. People had access to nutritious, home cooked food that they enjoyed and were given choice in their menu selections. People's independence and wellbeing was enhanced by the environment of the home with improvement being made.

Is the service caring?

People and staff were relaxed and comfortable with each other. People were supported with kindness and compassion by staff who knew them and understood the care they needed. There were processes in place to ensure people did not experience discrimination in relation to their care and support. People were treated with dignity and respect and were supported to make their own choices.

Is the service responsive?

People received personalised care and support and in the ways they preferred. Staff took the time to get to know people and their life and social histories so they could provide appropriate activities and keep people meaningfully occupied. People knew how to complain if they needed to and there was a clear complaints process available.

Is the service well led?

The management team that was approachable and respected by the people, relatives, professionals and staff. People, their relatives and staff were consulted and involved in their care and support. There was a programme of quality checks and audits to ensure the quality of the service was maintained with an emphasis on seeking continual improvement.

24 February 2016

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection that took place on 24 and 25 February and 7 March 2016. The aim of the inspection was to carry out a comprehensive review of the service. At our last inspection in July 2013 there were no breaches of legal requirements.

Hannah Levy House is registered to accommodate a maximum of 34 people who require personal care. There were 26 people living there at the time of our inspection. The home does not provide nursing care. The provider is a charitable trust which is run by a board of trustees. Hannah Levy House provides care for Jewish people in a Kosher environment with facilities to meet their religious, spiritual and cultural needs.

The home was led by 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.

People told us that their care and support needs were met and that staff were kind, caring and respectful. People also felt safe and had confidence in the staff.

Staff knew people well and understood their needs. Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. This meant that there was always information for staff to refer to when providing care for people.

The provider had implemented satisfactory systems to recruit and train staff in a way that ensured relevant checks and references were carried out and staff were competent to undertake the tasks required of them. The number of staff employed at Hannah Levy House, and the skills they had, were sufficient to meet the needs of the people they supported and keep them safe.

People were protected from harm and abuse wherever possible. There were systems in place to reduce and manage identified risks and to ensure medicines were managed and administered safely. Staff understood how to protect people from possible abuse and how to whistle-blow. People knew how to raise concerns and complaints and records showed that these were investigated and responded to.

There was a clear management structure in place. People and staff said was the manager was approachable and supportive. There were systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service.

8 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with people who told us the staff were "kind and caring". In our observations of care we saw people were treated with respect and in ways that ensured their dignity. People were involved in decisions about their care and one person told us they had regular meetings to discuss their care and support needs. We found records providing evidence for this in people's records.

People's care plans and risk assessments were completed but information from daily records was not always transferred to the care plans. This meant the records contained inaccurate information about people's health and welfare.

Staff told us they were well trained and records showed they had attended a number and range of courses, including safeguarding vulnerable adults. The staff had a good understanding of the actions they should take if they thought people were at risk of abuse.

17 April 2012

During a routine inspection

At the time of our inspection visit on Tuesday 17 April 2012 there were 26 people accommodated at Hannah Levy House.

We spoke with five people about their experiences of living at Hannah Levy House. We also spoke with seven visitors to the home about their observations. Six members of staff told us what it was like to work there.

People living at the home expressed positive comments and views about life in the home. One person we spoke with was staying at the home to see what it was like before deciding whether they wanted to live there permanently. They said they were not keen on communal living or giving up their own home. People we spoke with told us that staff were polite, patient and competent when supporting them. They said they received the help they needed. They told us they occupied single rooms. One person said their single room was important for their privacy.

People told us that help and advice from healthcare professionals such as doctors, podiatrists and dentists was arranged for them when they needed it. They said that the help they needed and how it was provided was discussed and agreed with them.

People said that activities were organised which were interesting and stimulating and they could join in if they wished. They told us that their dietary requirements were catered for and there was always enough to eat. They said they felt safe and they had opportunities to comment about the way the service they received was managed and how it could be improved.

We spoke with five visiting friends and relatives. They used terms such as 'brilliant' to describe what they observed and experienced. They told us they thought the home's staff treated people as individuals and displayed a genuine interest in their relatives. They said they were involved in decisions about the care their relatives received. They all told us they had never seen or heard anything to cause them to be concerned about the welfare of their relatives.

We spoke with two healthcare professionals and both said that the home requested their advice and support when it was appropriate. A district nurse told us that staff at the home were proactive and worked well with their team.

Staff we spoke with all demonstrated enthusiasm for working at the home as well as a good understanding of the needs of the people living there. They told us they received regular training that enabled them to undertake their roles and received regular supervision from their immediate line managers.