• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Recovery House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

46a Second Avenue, Low Hill, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV10 9PE (01902) 553316

Provided and run by:
City of Wolverhampton Council

All Inspections

30 July 2014

During a routine inspection

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, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection was unannounced, which meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming. Recovery House is a care home that provides social care support for up to four people. Care and support is provided to people with mental health needs and enables people to regain independent living skills. At the time of our inspection three people used the service.

There is a registered manager in post. We saw that they provided good leadership, was proud of the service that was offered to people and supported the staff. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider.

People were positive about how they felt safe and protected from harm whilst they recovered and felt better. We saw staff assisted and supported people with kindness whilst enabling people to do everyday tasks and following their interests in the community. People told us they felt more confident to move to more independent living due to the support they received.

Staff knew how to identify harm and abuse and knew how to act to protect people from the risk of harm which included unsafe staff practices. There were also a number of arrangements in place to promote people’s safety and support people in the right way at the right time. We saw that there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff who had received specific training to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and it was positive people were supported to make decisions about their lives. This included the reasons for being at the service and the goals they wanted to achieve. At the time of our inspection people were able to make decisions. We saw people were supported by staff where required to make their own healthy meals. People who were able to take their own medicines did this with staff support as part of people keeping their skills.

We did not observe people’s liberty being restricted. The registered manager and staff knew how to make the appropriate applications under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to protect people from unnecessary restrictions.

Links to community professionals and services in the community were promoted so that people benefited from their needs being assessed and met. People told us this enabled them to recover well. Health and social care professionals told us that it is a safe place where people can become well and is more homely than people going into other community settings such as hospitals. People told us that they were happy to be at the service until they were ready to move on.

Staff showed they had the knowledge to protect people from the risk of infections. The premises were checked so that any repairs and or adaptations were made where needed to meet people’s needs.

The provider had responsive systems in place to monitor and review people’s experiences and complaints so that improvements were made.

Arrangements were in place to monitor and check the quality of support people received. There was evidence that learning from incidents took place and any changes needed were put in place to continually improve the service people received.

7 January 2014

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection there were three people resident within Recovery House. To find out about people's experiences and what it was like to receive care from this provider we spoke with two members of staff, three people using the service and the manager.

People using the service were supported to be involved and make decisions about their care. Involvement in people's care and support was promoted by staff. One person we spoke with said; 'I am happy at the home and liked to go out to the shops on my own'.

People are in receipt of effective and appropriate care that meets their needs. All

staff we spoke with told us they had the information they needed to care for people safely. One person using the service said; 'They put you back on your feet here'.

There are suitable arrangements in place to ensure that people are safeguarded against the risk of abuse. People living at the home felt safe and were confident that staff would protect them.

Evidence we gathered indicated that staffing levels were adequate and that staff were supported through appropriate training. All staff we spoke with told us they felt supported by the manager and had regular supervision. One member of staff we spoke with said; 'I am confident that I will be listened to by the manager'.

Systems and processes were in place to monitor the quality of service and to ensure

people benefited from the service provided.

20 December 2012

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection to check on the care and welfare of people. There were three people living at the home on the day of the inspection. We spoke with two people, one relative, one member staff, and the home manager.

People we spoke with told us the service was supporting them to move out of residential care and back into independent living. One person said, 'Staff are approachable and treat me with dignity, respect and give me independence to make my own decisions'.

We saw staff working with people individually offering support. One person said, "Staff support me to get to the doctor, otherwise I wouldn't be able to get there".

Records showed that processes and procedures were in place to keep people safe. People told us they felt safe living in the home.

We saw that appropriate checks were being done when recruiting and selecting staff to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

We saw that the provider did regular audits as part of service improvement. Records we saw and staff we spoke with confirmed that systems were in place as part of quality assurance.