Archived: Huguenot Place

A registered manager was in post who was present on both days of the inspection. 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.

The registered manager was also responsible for managing Harding House located nearby which is another CQC registered care home which we inspected at the same time as Huguenot Place. Staff working at each service attended joint staff meetings and accessed the same organisational systems in place across areas such as training, care planning and quality assurance.

We inspected Huguenot Place on 12 September and 11 October 2018. The inspection was unannounced on the first day and we told the provider we would be returning on the second day.

At our last inspection in May 2017, we rated the service Good overall. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated any 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.

Appropriate numbers of support staff were allocated to help keep people safe. People spoken with were happy with the support provided by the staff working at Huguenot Place and said they were treated with dignity and respect.

We saw staff members had been safely recruited and had access to both mandatory and specialist training. Staff also received regular one to one supervision and additional support as required.

Staff understood how to help protect people from the risk of abuse. The service had procedures in place to report any safeguarding concerns to the local authority. People and staff were protected from potential risk of harm as the service had identified and assessed any risks to them and reviewed these on a regular basis. People had assessments which were individual to the person and their strengths and needs.

Medicines were administered in a safe way. Staff received training and a competency framework was in place to make sure they understood and followed safe procedures for administering medicines.

Staff had received training in the MCA (Mental Capacity Act) and understood the importance of gaining people’s consent before assisting them.

The service completed a detailed personalised support plan for each person with information provided in accessible formats. They kept people’s needs under review and made changes as required.

People using the service felt able to raise any concerns or complaints. There was a procedure in place for people to follow if they wanted to raise any issues. Staff also said they felt comfortable in raising any concerns should they have any.

The registered manager monitored the quality of the service and made changes to improve the service provided when required. Staff and people who used the service found the management team to be approachable.

After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach. We undertook a focused inspection on 17 May 2017 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements.

This report only covers our findings in relation to this topic. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Huguenot Place’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’

Huguenot Place provides accommodation and personal care for up to five people who are deaf with mental health needs. At the time of the inspection there were five people using the service.

The service had a registered manager who was not present during the inspection, however, the deputy manager was available on the day. 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 focused inspection on 17 May 2017, we found that the provider had followed their plan and improvements had been made.

People had received specific training on fire safety procedures and personal evacuation plans had been improved to ensure people understood the provider’s safety procedures. Water temperature checks were monitored to mitigate against the risk of scalding.

Staff’s signing skills had been assessed to make certain they communicated effectively with people. Care plans were person centred and identified the specific communication needs that people had chosen to use.

Advocacy support was accessed so people had representation when this was appropriate and their views were listened to. People were supported by kind staff who valued their individual needs; they involved people in the decisions about their care and respected their choices.

The provider operated a range of audits to ensure that the required standards were monitored and maintained. Records had been improved in line with the Accessible Information Standard and people were happy with the support they received from the management team.

Huguenot Place is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to five people who are hard of hearing with complex needs including mental health conditions. The service is located close to public transport links and is within walking distance of local facilities. At the time of the inspection there were five people using the service.

The service had 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.

Care records showed us that people had appropriate access to health care professionals and received their medicines safely. People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drinks to help ensure their nutritional needs were met.

There were gaps in staff recruitment records, however there was a plan in place to address this. Staff had received training to support people in the home but required further training to meet people’s communication needs. There were enough staff in the home to support people.

Where appropriate people were enabled and supported to be independent. People received care in a dignified and respectful manner. Staff knew the care needs of the people they supported and told us that staff were kind and caring. People did not have access to advocacy services and therefore did not have the opportunity to access independent advice and support if they needed it.

Health and safety procedures were not always followed by staff to ensure the environment was safe. Staff had an understanding of safeguarding procedures to identify and report abuse at the earliest opportunity. Risk assessments had been developed for all areas of identified risks to determine actions that needed to be taken to keep people safe.

Staff spoke positively regarding the overall management of the home, and told us they were supported.

Audits had been completed however these were not always effective as they had not identified all of the shortfalls we found during the inspection. People had completed feedback forms to give their view of the service, however the responses to these had not yet been evaluated.

Staff understood the relevant requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were enabled to remain independent and encouraged to participate in activities that were meaningful to them. Care plans were person centred and people told us that their care plans had been discussed with them.

Complaints were acted on and resolved, however the complaints guidelines were not provided in an accessible format.

We have made two recommendations in relation to consent and dignity and respect. We found three breaches of regulations relating to safe care and treatment, staffing and good governance. You can see what action we asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.