We carried out a review of the data available to us about Polesworth Group Pooley Heights on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Polesworth Group Pooley Heights, you can give feedback on this service.
The service is a ‘care home’ operated by Polesworth Group Homes; a non-profit and independent provider of support for people with learning disabilities. The service, Pooley Heights, is one of eight services provided by Polesworth Group Homes Limited. The service provides short stay accommodation with personal care for up to six adults, at any one time, living with a learning disability. People in residential care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service was providing support to people on a short stay basis to offer people and their usual carers a break from their usual routine. At the time of our inspection visit, five people were on a short stay at the home.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 last inspection in April 2016 we rated the service as Good. At this inspection, we found the quality of the care had been maintained and people continued to receive a service that was safe, caring, effective and responsive to their needs. The rating continues to be Good.
The provider adjusted staffing numbers to meet the needs of people using the service for a short stay; to ensure sufficient staff were on shift to meet their individual needs. Staff had the appropriate levels of skill, experience and support to meet people’s needs and provide effective care. Staff knew people well and how to keep them safe because risks had been assessed.
Staff knew what action to take in the event of an emergency. The provider checked staff’s suitability to deliver care and support during the recruitment process. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from the risks of abuse. Staff had received ‘safeguarding’ training and knew how to raise concerns under the provider’s safeguarding policies. The registered manager and provider understood and followed their legal responsibilities when safeguarding concerns were identified to them.
At the beginning of each short stay, important information was updated about people so staff had the information they needed. People had individual plans of care and were able to take part in individual activities according to their preferences. Staff ensured people achieved positive outcomes during their short stay.
People were encouraged and supported to maintain good health through healthy eating. Staff supported people to access healthcare services, if needed, during their short stay. People received their prescribed medicines from trained staff. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and worked within the principles of the Act. Managers understood their responsibilities under the Act and when ‘best interests’ meetings should take place.
Staff were compassionate, kind and caring toward the people they supported. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and staff took opportunities to promote people’s independence. People and relatives were complimentary about the service and had no complaints. Staff felt valued and supported by the provider and registered manager and were happy in their job role.
The registered manager and provider checked the quality of the service to make sure people’s needs were met safely and effectively. Feedback was encouraged from people and relatives. The registered manager and provider understood their regulatory responsibilities.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Pooley Heights Care Home provides a residential respite service for up to six adults with a learning disability at any one time. At the time of our inspection visit, there was one person on a respite stay, and two people preparing to leave at the end of respite stays. The ‘respite’ service was providing support to people on a short term basis to offer people and their carers a break from their normal routine.
The service was last inspected on when we found the provider was compliant with the essential standards described in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.
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. The registered manager was supported by a daily manager, who oversaw the day to day management of Pooley Heights, as well as development of the service. We were told the daily manager would shortly put in an application to become the registered manager. We refer to the daily manager as the manager in the body of this report.
People were comfortable with the care staff who supported them. Relatives were confident people were safe living in the home. Staff received training in how to safeguard people from abuse and were supported by the provider’s safeguarding policies and procedures. Staff understood what action they should take in order to protect people from abuse. Risks to people’s safety were identified, minimised and responsive towards individual needs so people could be supported in the least restrictive way possible and build their independence.
People were supported with their medicines if they needed it, by staff that were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines safely. Medicines were given in a timely way and as prescribed. Regular checks of medicines helped ensure any potential issues were identified and action could be taken as a result.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staffing was increased to accommodate both planned and urgent respite stays. The provider conducted pre-employment checks prior to staff starting work to ensure their suitability to support people who stayed at the home. Staff told us they had not been able to start work until these checks had been completed.
The provider assessed people’s capacity to make their own decisions if it was identified people lacked the capacity to make all of their own decisions. Staff and the registered manager had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, and the need to seek consent from people before delivering care and support wherever possible. Where restrictions on people’s liberty were in place, legal processes had been followed to ensure the restrictions were in people’s ‘best interests’. Applications for legal authorisation to restrict people’s liberty had been sent to the relevant authorities in a timely way.
People told us staff were respectful and treated them with dignity. We observed interactions between people which confirmed this. Records also showed people’s privacy and dignity was maintained. People were supported to make choices about their day to day lives. For example, they could choose what to eat and drink and when. People were supported to maintain any activities, interests and relationships that were important to them.
People had access to health professionals whenever necessary, and we saw the care and support people received was in line with what had been recommended by health professionals. People’s care records were written in a way which helped staff to deliver care that was based on each person’s needs. People were involved in how their care and support was delivered, as were their relatives if people needed support from a representative to plan their care.
Relatives told us they were able to raise any concerns with the registered manager. They felt these would be listened to and responded to effectively and in a timely way. Staff told us the management team were approachable and responsive to their ideas and suggestions. There were systems to monitor the quality of the support provided in the home. The provider ensured that recommended actions from quality assurance checks were clearly documented and acted upon by the manager as they undertook regular unannounced visits to the home.
People staying at the service told us that they were happy with the care and support they received. One person said, "It's ok, it's alright, I like it." Another person said, "Yes, I like it, yes I like coming."
We saw that people appeared relaxed and comfortable both with the staff and in the environment. We observed that people chatted happily between themselves and to the staff. We noted that the staff treated people with dignity and kindness and engaged people in conversation.
Systems were in place to ensure that staff had up to date information about people when they arrived for their respite stay. People also had support plans in place which were reviewed regularly and provided current information about people's care and support needs.
Meals were based on people's preferences and were predominantly home made from fresh produce. People told us that they enjoyed the meals they were provided with. "It's nice, I get what I like," was a comment made.
The environment was homely, well maintained and appropriate to meet people's needs.
A robust recruitment system was in place to ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.
We observed positive relationships between people and the staff. We saw that people appeared comfortable and relaxed in approaching the staff, and smiled and joined in with conversations through a variety of communication methods which included speech, signing and gestures.
People had care plans in place that contained information to assist staff with meeting their care and support needs. Staff we spoke with knew about people's care and support needs and were able to tell us about them. There were sufficient staff available to meet people's care and support needs.
Medication was managed safely on behalf of the people receiving a respite service.
Confidential records belonging to both the people living in the home and the staff were maintained in good order and were stored securely.
We found that staff knew people as individuals and understood their personal needs and ways of communicating those needs. Staff treated people kindly and respectfully and included them in conversation, asking for their input.
We looked at the care planning documentation to see what guidance was given to staff, to ensure that people received their care as they required to meet their needs. We looked to see if systems were in place to offer this in a safe way. We found that care plans were very detailed and demonstrated that staff understood each person as an individual. Risk areas were identified in most cases, with plans in place on how to minimise and manage these.
People who were able to tell us said they enjoyed staying at the home and liked the staff. They told us about the busy lifestyles they lead. Two people had been out into the community prior to our visit, one to attend a library and the other person had been shopping in the village. The other two people were attending a day centre and we met and spoke with them when they returned to the home in the afternoon.
People told us they liked their meals and indicated that they were happy with their bedrooms. One person said, 'I like living here, people are nice and the food is good. I really like X (one of the care workers).' Another person said, 'I like dinner.'
We spoke with the manager and the staff who were on duty throughout the day of our visit. Discussions with staff clearly evidenced they were committed to their work and strived to promote positive outcomes for the people in their care. Comments included, 'I am happy working here. Polesworth Group Homes are a good company to work for,' and 'I really enjoy coming to work here, it doesn't even feel like work.'
The home had procedures in place for monitoring the service they provided. This should ensure that any problems are identified and improvements, where required, are made.