You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 16 & 17 November 2015

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 20 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We were made aware that the home had recently gone through a transition from a children's service to an adult's service and we saw that meetings had taken place and pathway planning had been done with young people to help them, their families and other stakeholders through the transition. There was a manager in post who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

People's care plans were being reviewed on a routine basis by staff and the risk assessments enabled and promoted the independence of the individual as much as possible. We asked staff about their understanding of safeguarding, whistleblowing and key working. Staff were knowledgeable in all these areas and felt confident with their knowledge around care planning, best interests, mental capacity and safeguarding.

We spoke with visiting family members who told us they had received lots of information about the service which they found helpful. They told us they felt satisfied with the information and they felt confident they could ask questions at any time about things they were not sure about.