We carried out a review of the data available to us about Hucknall Hope Lea Project 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 Hucknall Hope Lea Project, you can give feedback on this service.
We inspected the service on 5 April 2018. The inspection was unannounced.
People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Hucknall Hope Lea Project accommodates up to four people. On the day of our inspection, four people were using the service.
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.” Registering the Right Support CQC policy.
At the last inspection in October 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’ in all the key questions. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
People continued to receive a safe service where they were protected from avoidable harm, discrimination and abuse. Risks associated with people’s needs including the environment, had been assessed and planned for and these were monitored for any changes. There were sufficient staff employed and deployed to meet people’s individual needs. Safe staff recruitment procedures were in place and used. People were supported to manage their medicines safely. Accidents and incidents were reported and acted upon to reduce further reoccurrence. The service was clean and infection control good practice guidance was used.
People continued to receive an effective service. Staff received an induction, ongoing training and support. People were fully involved in menu planning, shopping and cooking meals. The staff worked well with external health care professionals when additional guidance was required. People were supported with their health needs and accessed health services when required to maintain their health. 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 in the service support this practice. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) were followed.
People continued to receive care from staff who were kind, compassionate and treated them with dignity and respected their privacy. Staff had developed positive relationships with the people they supported, they understood people’s needs, preferences, and what was important to them. Advocacy information was not available but this information was sourced following our inspection.
People continued to receive a responsive service. People’s needs were assessed and planned for with the involvement of the person. People received opportunities to pursue their interests, hobbies and social activities were offered. People were also supported to participate in community activities and interests. The provider had made available the complaint procedure.
The service continued to be well-led. There was an open and transparent culture and good leadership. People received opportunities to share their feedback about the service and staff felt valued. The provider had quality assurance checks in place on quality and safety.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
We carried out an unannounced inspection of the service on 21 October 2015. Hucknall Hope Lea Project is registered to accommodate up to six people and specialises in providing care and support for people who live with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were four people using the service.
On the day of our inspection there was a registered manager in place. 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.
Appropriate recruitment checks had not always been carried out on staff before they started to ensure they were of good character. However, people told us they felt safe. People were supported by an appropriate number of staff. Staff had attended safeguarding adults training, could identify different types of abuse and knew the procedure for reporting concerns. People who used the service managed their medication independently and felt confident to do so.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. An application for Deprived of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) was required for one person. Assessments of people’s capacity were generally in place but were required about managing people’s finances.
Staff received regular support and supervision from their manager to carry out their role effectively. People were supported to follow a healthy and balanced diet and weekly meetings took place to plan meals in advance. People’s day to day health needs were met by the staff and external professionals.
People told us the staff were very caring towards them. People were treated with kindness by a team of staff who valued them as individuals. The staff took time to get to know people and what was important to them. People who used the service and staff interacted with each other well. People’s privacy was respected, their dignity was maintained and their independence encouraged.
People were involved in planning their care and were supported to pursue their interests and hobbies. People’s care records were written in a person-centred way whilst staff knew people’s like and dislikes and what interested them. People were able to see their friends and relatives when they wanted to. People and relatives felt comfortable to approach the manager with any issues and complaint were dealt with appropriately.
The registered manager had developed positive working relationships with people who use the service, the staff and relatives. People, staff members and relatives spoke positively about the registered manager. The registered manager encouraged open communication with people who use the service, those that matter to them, staff and external professionals through surveys. The management team ensured all requirements of their CQC registration were met.
During our visit we saw positive interactions between staff and people using the service. We saw they supported people in activities that promoted their independence and provided assistance when needed. We saw they communicated with people in a warm and supportive way.
People using the service told us they received support that met their needs and they were treated with dignity and respect. One person said, 'I love it here'. Another person said, 'I like it here' and the third person said, 'I'm happy.' They told us staff talked to them about their care and reviews had taken place.
People using the service told us they liked their bedrooms and had everything they needed. They told us the premises were decorated nicely, well maintained, warm enough and clean.
We found staff received an induction, supervision, appraisals and training.
We found people were made aware of the complaints system. Two people told us they had never had to make a complaint. One person said, 'I've never got any [complaints].' They told us they had been informed by staff how to make a complaint and would tell staff or the registered manager.
People using the service told us they felt safe and they would inform the manager or other staff if they were concerned about anything. They told us staff were well trained. We also found that staff received training. However, we found that one to one staff supervision had not taken place since February 2012 and appraisals had not taken place since 2010.
People using the service told us the quality of the service was good. One person said, 'It's very good.' They told us they had a say in how the service was run and managed. They told us house meetings took place every week where they could discuss the service. We saw evidence that people using the service had met with their keyworkers every three months to discuss their care. This meant there were systems in place for people to provide feedback on the quality of the service.
We observed staff speaking with people using the service and saw they treated people with dignity and respect.