You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 September 2017

This inspection took place on 13 July 2017 and was unannounced.

Headroomgate is registered to provide 24 hour care for up to 19 people. The home is situated close to St Annes town centre and is a large corner property with garden and paved areas around the building. There are three floors, two of which have lift access, two lounges and dining areas.

Some bedrooms have en-suite facilities. At the time of our inspection, 18 people lived at the home.

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.

At the last inspection in May 2016, we found the provider was not meeting the requirements of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The breaches related to dignity and respect, and safe care and treatment. Following that inspection, the provider sent us an action plan which told us how they planned to make improvements for people who used the service. During this inspection, we checked to see what improvements had been made. We found the provider had made positive changes and the service was now meeting legal requirements.

Environmental risks and risks to individuals were assessed and measures put in place to reduce or remove them, in order for care and support to be provided safely. Sufficient information was available to guide staff on how to support people safely.

We saw staff used safe systems when administering medicines. Medicines were safely and appropriately stored and secured safely when not in use. We checked how staff stored and stock checked controlled drugs. We noted this followed current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.

We found staffing levels were regularly reviewed to ensure people were safe. There was an appropriate skill mix of staff to ensure the needs of people who lived at the home were met.

Staff received training related to their role and were knowledgeable about their responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs.

Staff had received safeguarding vulnerable adults training and understood their responsibilities to report any unsafe care or abusive practices related to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. Staff we spoke with told us they were aware of the safeguarding procedure.

People told us they were involved in planning their care and had discussed and consented to their care. We found staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

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 within the home supported this practice.

People told us they were happy with the variety and choice of meals available to them. We saw regular snacks and drinks were provided between meals to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration.

We found people had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met. We saw staff responded promptly when people had experienced health problems.

Comments we received demonstrated people were satisfied with their care. The management and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They were committed to providing a good standard of care and support to people who lived at the home.

Care plans were organised and had identified the care and support people needed. We found they were informative about care people had received. They had been kept under review and updated when necessary to reflect people’s changing needs.

People told us they were happy with the activities organised at the home. Activities were arranged for individuals and for groups. The registered manager explained this was an area they had identified for improvement to ensure people were able to participate in activities that were meaningful to them.

A complaints procedure was available and people we spoke with said they knew how to complain. People and staff spoken with felt the registered manager was accessible, supportive and approachable.

The registered manager had sought feedback from people who lived at the home and staff. They had consulted with people for input on how they could continually improve the service people received. The provider had regularly completed a range of audits to maintain people’s safety and welfare.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 September 2017

The service was safe.

Medicine protocols were safe and people received their medicines correctly according to their care plan.

Personalised guidelines around risk management were in place. Staff were aware of assessments to support people and manage risk.

There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs, wants and wishes. Recruitment procedures the home had were safe.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding and were knowledgeable about how to recognise and report abuse.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 September 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had the appropriate training and regular supervision to help them to meet people’s needs.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and had knowledge of the process to follow.

The home provided a range of food and drinks to help meet people’s nutritional needs. People’s specific needs were catered for.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 September 2017

The service was caring.

People who lived at the home told us they were treated with dignity, kindness and compassion in their day-to-day care.

Staff had developed positive caring relationships and spoke about those they cared for in a warm, compassionate manner.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and the support they received.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 September 2017

The service was responsive.

People received care that was person centred and responsive to their needs likes and dislikes.

The provider gave people a flexible service, which responded to their changing needs, lifestyle choices and appointments.

People told us they knew how to make a complaint and felt confident any issues they raised would be dealt with.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 September 2017

The service was well-led.

The provider had ensured there were clear lines of responsibility and accountability.

The registered manager had a visible presence throughout the home. People and staff we spoke with felt the registered manager was supportive and approachable.

The registered manager had oversight of and acted to maintain the quality of the service provided.

The provider had sought feedback from people, their relatives and staff.