You are here

Katharine House Hospice Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 July 2016

This inspection took place on the 11, 12 and 20 May 2016 and was unannounced.

Katharine House Hospice is registered to provide care and support to people in relation to symptom control, pain relief, assessment and end of life care.

Katharine House Hospice in-patient facility caters for up to 10 people, accommodated within two four bedded bays or an individual room. The hospice service provides specialist palliative care, advice and clinical support for adults with life limiting illness and their families. They deliver physical, psychological, social and spiritual care through teams of nurses, doctors, counsellors, chaplains and other professionals including therapists and social workers.

Katharine House Hospice provides a Hospice at Home Service, which provides palliative care within people’s own homes, which is provided by health care assistants.

Katharine House Hospice has a day therapy service, which provides an opportunity for people to meet and take part in a range of activities. The day therapy service in additions provides facilities for counselling and bereavement support, chaplaincy services, occupational therapy physiotherapy and complementary therapies.

Katharine House Hospice had 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.

People told us that they felt safe at the service and that they had confidence in the staff. The service was committed to promoting people’s safety across all levels of staff within the organisation and included advising the Board of Trustees of safeguarding concerns and ensuring staff at all levels, including volunteers and administration staff received training on protecting people from potential abuse or avoidable harm.

Risks to people were assessed and where potential risks had been identified these were minimised in consultation with the person. The provider promoted people and their relatives’ safety by providing leaflets and opportunities to take part in groups where information could be shared to reduce risk, for example in falls prevention.

The provider had robust systems to monitor risk which was facilitated by staff within the service with specific roles, such as infection control and tissue viability that undertook audits and reported the outcome to the Board of Trustees, where recommendations were considered and acted upon. The provider had a system to ensure that the premises of the hospice and its equipment were maintained to ensure peoples safety and any issues identified acted upon in a timely manner.

People’s medication needs were discussed by health professionals to manage and support people’s symptoms and pain management. And information in the form of a leaflet was provided to people, which included information when medicines were not being used for their usual indications. Medicines were regularly reviewed and audited to ensure they met people’s needs. A community pharmacist and pharmacy technician provided a medicines supply service and medicines advice to staff or people using the service, to ensure people received their medicines in a safe and timely manner.

People and their relatives were confident in the knowledge and skills of the staff that provided their care and support. Staff told us that they had access to training which enabled them to understand the needs of people and provide effective care and support. Staff said that they received planned and proactive support that enabled them to deal with the difficulties and challenges in providing care to people and their relatives with life limiting conditions and who required end of life care.

There were effective systems in place for all those involved in people’s support and care to sh

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 21 July 2016

The service was safe.

Staff had been trained to recognise and respond to any actual or potential abuse. The service had developed systems for reporting concerns and worked with health and social care professionals.

Potential risks to people were assessed and measures put into place to reduce risks. Where incidents occurred these were analysed and used as a learning tool to reduce future risks.

People�s needs were met. They were supported and cared for by staff from a range of disciplines that had the appropriate skills and knowledge to meet their needs safely.

People were supported by staff in all aspects related to their medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 July 2016

The service was effective.

People received support and care from a staff team who were trained to meet their needs. We found staff were encouraged to develop their knowledge and skills and at all levels within the service.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were involved in making decisions about all aspects of their treatment and care.

People were supported to eat and drink and maintain a balanced diet. People were able to choose from a varied menu, which included a range of specialist drinks for those with a reduced appetite.

People�s health needs were carefully monitored and shared with a range of health and social care professionals to ensure people�s care, treatment and support was effective.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 July 2016

The service was caring.

People and their relatives told us that staff treated them with kindness, care, dignity and respect at all times. Staff were highly pro-active in their approach to care. They demonstrated compassion in every aspect of their work to make people feel valued and supported.

People�s spiritual needs were recognised and if appropriate met by a chaplaincy team and counselling services

Staff supported the emotional wellbeing of people and their relatives with end of life care being provided with sensitivity, this included arrangements for the body of a person who had died to be cared for in a dignified way.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 July 2016

The service was responsive.

The staff responded to people�s physical, psychological, social and spiritual needs. People and their relatives were fully involved in assessing their needs and planning how their care should be provided, which included their wishes regarding their end of life care.

The provider had a positive approach to using complaints and concerns to improve the quality of the service and was monitored by The Board of Trustees and the management team.

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 July 2016

The service was well-led.

The service promoted a positive and open culture and provided a range of opportunities for people who used the service and their relatives to comment and influence the quality of the service provided. Information about services, which included practical information, was offered to people.

The Board of Trustees and managerial teams provided strong, effective leadership and provided a clear strategy for the long term development of the service.

The management team was pro-active in seeking people�s views about services provided and used information to develop the service to meet people�s changing needs.

The provider worked with other healthcare professionals and national organisations and participated in research projects to develop and influence care for people.