• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Henshaws Society for Blind People - 3 Red Admiral Court Gateshead

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

3 Red Admiral Court, Festival Park, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, NE11 9TW (0191) 461 1469

Provided and run by:
Henshaws Society for Blind People

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 13 April 2018

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.

This inspection took place on 7 March 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection, we had received a completed Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR 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 PIR and other information we held about the service as part of our inspection. This included the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are reports of changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send the Care Quality Commission (CQC) within required timescales. We contacted commissioners from the local authorities who contracted people’s care and other professionals who could comment about people’s care.

During this inspection we carried out observations using the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not communicate with us.

During the inspection we spoke with five people who lived at 3, Red Admiral Court, the registered manager, the director of housing and support and five support workers. After the inspection we spoke with two relatives to collect their views about the care provided. We observed care and support in communal areas and looked in the kitchen. We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how the home was managed. We looked at care records for three people, recruitment, training and induction records for three staff, two people’s medicines records, staffing rosters, staff meeting minutes, meeting minutes for people who used the service, the maintenance book, maintenance contracts and quality assurance audits the registered manager had completed.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 13 April 2018

This inspection took place on 7 March 2018 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.

3, Red Admiral Court is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as single package under contractual agreements. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service is provided from one three storey building and accommodates up to six people with visual impairments, who may also have physical and learning disabilities. Six people were using the service at the time of inspection.

A registered manager was in place. 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 in December 2015 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good apart from the caring domain which exceeded the fundamental standards and is now rated as outstanding.

This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People were supported to access health care professionals when required and supported to have maximum control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; policies and procedures supported this practice. Menus were planned with input from people, based on their personal preferences and choices.

Records were personalised, up to date and accurately reflected people's care and support needs. They provided staff with detailed information to enable them to provide effective, person centred care that promoted people's independence. Risk assessments were in place and they accurately identified current risks to the person as well as ways for staff to minimise or appropriately manage those risks.

People were provided with opportunities to follow their interests and hobbies and they were introduced to new activities. They were supported to contribute and to be part of the local community. All of the people were encouraged to develop their independent living skills. They were supported to become as independent as possible whatever the level of need, to enable them to lead a more fulfilled life.

There were enough staff available to provide individual care and support to each person. Staff upheld people's human rights and treated everyone with great respect and dignity. Every effort was made to help people be involved including by the use of communication technology.

Staff were well supported due to regular supervision, annual appraisals and a robust induction programme, which developed their understanding of people and their routines. Staff also received a wide range of specialised training to ensure they could support people safely and carry out their roles effectively.

People, relative’s and social care professionals considered the caring nature of the service to be of the highest standard. Staff knew the people they were supporting well and we observed that care was provided with patience and kindness. People were protected as staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse. People received their medicines safely.

Communication was effective to ensure staff and relatives were kept up to date about any changes in people's care and support needs and the running of the service. The provider continuously sought to make improvements to the service people received. The provider had effective quality assurance processes that included checks of the quality and safety of the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.