• 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

All Inspections

7 March 2018

During a routine inspection

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.

9 December 2015

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 9 December 2015.

We last inspected Henshaws Society for Blind People-3, Red Admiral Court in September 2013. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the legal requirements in force at the time.

3, Red Admiral Court provides accommodation and personal care for up to six people with visual impairments, who may also have physical and learning disabilities. Nursing care is not provided.

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.

People were protected as staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse. Staff were aware of the whistle blowing procedure which was in place to report concerns and poor practice. When new staff were appointed thorough vetting checks were carried out to make sure they were suitable to work with people who needed care and support.

People told us they felt safe. They were relaxed and appeared comfortable with the staff who supported them. There were enough staff available to provide individual care and support to each person. People received their medicines in a safe and timely way.

Staff had received training and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Best Interest Decision Making, when people were unable to make decisions themselves. There were other opportunities for staff to receive training to meet people’s care needs.

People who used the service had food and drink to meet their needs. People were assisted by staff to plan their menu, shop for the ingredients and cook their own food. Other people received meals that had been cooked by staff.

People were supported to maintain some control in their lives. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care. The records gave detailed instructions to staff to help people learn new skills and become more independent.

People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Staff followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the treatment they needed.

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.

Staff knew the people they were supporting well and we observed that care was provided with patience and kindness and people’s privacy and dignity were respected.

A complaints procedure was available. People we spoke with said they knew how to complain but they hadn’t needed to.

People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was consultation with people and family members and their views were used to improve the service. The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided.

19, 20 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We found that care and support was tailored to meeting people's individual needs and promoting their independence. People told us they were happy living at the home. Their comments included, 'I've no problems, we get good support', and, 'The staff are good to work with'.

People were supported to meet their nutritional needs and were actively involved in choosing meals, and preparing food and drinks.

The home was appropriately designed and equipped for the needs of the people living there, and the environment was safe and well maintained.

People were cared for by staff who were checked and vetted to make sure they were suitable to be employed.

Personal records, and other records held at the service, were accurate and fit for purpose.

11 December 2012

During a routine inspection

We found that people living at the home agreed to the care and support they received. They told us they were happy with how they were supported and were helped to develop greater independence. Their comments included, 'I'm doing a bit more for myself now', and, 'I go to college'.

Care was planned according to people's individual needs and preferences and provided by enough skilled staff who worked flexibly to meet their needs. Risks to safety and welfare were appropriately managed, and included safe arrangements for handling medication.

People said staff were 'kind' and 'very good'. They told us they understood how to make a complaint and had no concerns about how they were treated.

6 December 2011

During a routine inspection

People living at the home told us they were happy with the service and the care and support they received. Their comments included, 'I like it here'; 'Staff are kind'; 'They help me do more for myself'; and, 'I get good support'.