You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 January 2016

The inspection took place on 16 and 17 November 2015. The first day of inspection was unannounced. At the previous inspection in November 2013 the service was meeting the legal requirements.

Harboro provides care and accommodation for up to six people with learning and physical disabilities.

The service has 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.ale, Altrincham & District Ltd

Harboro is one of the services run by Stockdales of Sale, Altrincham and District Limited, a registered charity providing person centred care and support to people with complex care needs.

Due to the unique methods people used to communicate, which did not always include language, we were only able to speak with one person who used the service and had limited discussions with them. However we used a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) to help us understand the experiences of the people who used the service.

There was a very positive atmosphere within the home and people were very much at the heart of the service. People and their relatives were enabled to be involved in their care and staff implemented the service’s core values to ensure people had a meaningful and enjoyable life.

The registered manager and provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of care to ensure national and local standards were met and maintained.

Continual improvements to care provision were made which showed the registered manager and provider were committed to delivering high quality care.

All of the staff received regular training that provided them with the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs in an effective and individualised manner.

People’s health and wellbeing needs were closely monitored and the staff worked well with other professionals to ensure these needs were met.

Staff sought people’s consent before they provided care and support. However, some people who used the service were unable to make certain decisions about their care. In these circumstances the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were being followed.

People and their relatives were involved in the assessment and review of their care. Staff supported and encouraged people to access the community and participate in activities that were important to them. Innovative ideas had been implemented which ensured people received care that was meaningful and personal to them.

Feedback was sought and used to improve the care. People knew how to make a complaint and complaints were managed in accordance with the provider’s complaints policy.

People’s safety risks were identified, managed and reviewed and the staff understood how to keep people safe.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to meet people’s needs and promote their safety. Systems were in place to protect people from the risks associated from medicines.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect and staff promoted people’s independence and right to privacy. The staff were highly committed and provided people with positive care experiences. They ensured people’s care preferences were met and gave people opportunities to try new experiences.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 January 2016

The service was safe.

Risks to people were assessed and reviewed and staff understood how to keep people safe.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm in a manner that protected and promoted their right to independence.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 January 2016

The service was effective.

The environment had been designed and arranged to provide positive living, learning and social experiences.

There were facilities on site to support people’s care, therapy and leisure needs and, where they were able to, practice independent living skills.

Staff had the specialist knowledge and skills required to meet people’s individual needs and promote people’s health and wellbeing.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 January 2016

The service was caring.

People had positive care experiences and staff ensured people’s care preferences were met.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect and staff supported people to be involved in their care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 January 2016

The service was responsive.

Innovative methods were used that ensured care was delivered in accordance with people’s individual preferences and needs.

People’s care was based around their individual needs, goals, wishes and aspirations.

Staff understood individual’s complex communication needs and supported them to achieve their goals and increasing independence both at home and in the community.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 January 2016

The service was well led.

There was a positive atmosphere within the home and people were very much at the heart of the service. High quality care and support was consistently provided.

There were effective systems in place that regularly assessed, monitored and improved the quality of care.

The registered manager and provider demonstrated they provided high quality and consistent care that was based on best practice.