Honeybourne House

Updated 4 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 was planned to check 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.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection at Honeybourne House on 20 and 21 February 2018.One Adult Social Care Inspector carried out this inspection.

Before the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. We reviewed notifications of incidents the provider had sent to us since the last inspection. A notification is information about important events, which the service is required to send us by law.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

People living at Honeybourne House had limited or no verbal communication. Therefore, they were unable to tell us about their experiences of the services. During our inspection we spent time with people observing daily routines and interactions between people and staff supporting them. This helped us gain a better understanding of people and the care they received at Honeybourne House.

During the inspection we spoke with twelve members of staff. This included care staff, the registered manager, deputy manager, area manager and associate Director for the organisation.

We looked at five care records, which related to people's individual care needs. This included support plans, risk assessments and daily monitoring records. We also looked at records that related to people's medicines, as well as documentation relating to the management of the service. These included auditing records, policies and procedures, accident and incident reports and training records. We looked at the recruitment, induction and training records of staff recently employed to work in the service.

Following the inspection we spoke with two social workers from the local authority adult social care team, and two independent advocates who had supported people at the service. We also spoke with a representative from the local authority safeguarding team in relation to a recent incident in the service. Their feedback can be found throughout the inspection report.

Updated 4 April 2018

Honeybourne House provides residential and nursing care for a maximum of 21 people with a learning disability and associated conditions, such as Autism. The service is situated on a residential street and is divided into two parts; a purpose built nursing unit known as the Bungalow, and the residential service referred to by people as, The House. For the purpose of this report we will refer to the whole service as Honeybourne House but may also refer specifically to the nursing or residential unit. At the time of the inspection eight people were being supported in the nursing unit and 11 people in the residential part of the home.

Honeybourne House 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, and both were looked at during this inspection.

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.

People were safe living at the home and with the staff supporting them. We saw people were happy and trusted the staff. There were systems and processes in place to minimise risks to people. These included a robust recruitment process and making sure staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. There were adequate numbers of staff available to meet people's needs in a timely manner.

People received effective care from staff who knew them well, and had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff monitored people's health and wellbeing and made sure they had access to healthcare professionals according to their individual needs. Registered nurses were available to support people’s day to day nursing needs.

People had their medicines managed safely, and received their medicines in a way they chose and preferred. Staff undertook regular training and understood the importance of safe administration of medicines. Staff said they undertook regular competency checks to test their knowledge and to help ensure their skills were up to date, and in line with best practice.

.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible, and the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. Where people were distressed or found it difficult to express themselves, staff showed patience and understanding. People's privacy and dignity was mainly promoted and respected. It had been noted that the layout of people’s bedrooms and bathrooms in the unit could mean people’s privacy and dignity was compromised. However, the registered manager and provider were prompt to address this matter during the inspection.

The service was responsive to people's needs and people were able to make choices about their daily routines and how support was delivered. People had access to a range of organised and informal activities. Relatives were welcomed in the home and their views and feedback were taken into account, when planning care.

Systems were in place to deal promptly and appropriately with any complaints or concerns raised about the service. The registered manager and provider treated complaints as an opportunity to learn and improve.

The home was well led by an experienced registered manager and management team. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, seek people's views and make on-going improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below