You are here

Archived: Longview House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 December 2015

This was an unannounced inspection, carried out on 3 & 10 September 2015.

Based in a residential area of Huyton, Longview House provides support for people to manage their mental health. The service operates a three stage approach with three separate living areas within the building. The three stages support people to move from receiving full support to semi-independent and finally independent living. Staff are available 24 hours a day to support people when needed. Ten people were using the service at the time of this inspection.

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.

The last inspection of Longview House was carried out in October 2013 and we found that the service was meeting all of the regulations we assessed.

People were protected from abuse and the risk of abuse. People who used the service clearly understood how they should be cared for by the staff. In the event of having a concern about their or another person’s safety, people told us that they knew who to speak to.

Systems were in place for the safe management of people’s medicines. Policies and procedures relating to the safe management, administration and recording of medicines were readily available to staff. A designated medicines room was available for the safe storage and administration of people’s medicines.

People showed us around the service and told us that the shared lounge and dining room had recently been re-decorated. A number of people told us that they were in the process of visiting local shops to choose new furnishings and curtains for their bedrooms.

People explained that they had a set budget everyday to purchase their food. One person told us more money was available if needed and that some people chose to go to the supermarket and others chose to use the local shops to buy their provisions.

People who used the service told us that the staff that supported them were well trained to do their job. Staff told us that they felt they received appropriate training for their role. In addition they told us that they received regular supervision from their line manager.

Staff told us that their role included ensuring that people’s privacy and dignity were promoted and maintained. We saw that people had a clear understanding of their rights to privacy and dignity.

People told us that they were encouraged by staff to maintain contact with their family. Other people said that their families visited on a regular basis and that staff always gave them privacy when they had visitors. A small private lounge area was available for people to receive their visitors or speak with staff in private.

People told us that physical exercises were promoted to keep people fit and healthy. For example, football and badminton matches were organised against other teams in the local area, including those run by other services.

Regular opportunities were available for people to comment about the service they received. For example, people had the opportunity to comment to the registered provider about the service via feedback forms that were available within the home. In addition, people met on a weekly basis with their keyworker and fortnightly ‘community’ meetings were held for people to get together and discuss the service.

Quality assurance systems were in place to ensure that the service was safe. In addition the registered provider carried out spot checks on the service and regular health and safety audits. Any actions from the registered provider’s spot checks and audits were documented and acted upon.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 December 2015

The service was safe.

People felt safe living at the service.

Procedures were in place to help ensure that people were safe.

Procedures were in place for the safe management of people’s medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 December 2015

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had received training for their role.

People participated in menu planning or purchased their own foods independently.

People told us that they were supported by staff to keep healthy.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 December 2015

The service was caring.

People were treated with respect and their dignity was maintained.

Staff had a good knowledge of people’s individual likes, dislikes, lifestyle choices and daily routines.

Information was available to people in relation to how they could access local advocacy and support services.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 December 2015

The service was responsive.

People needs and wishes were assessed, planned for and reviewed on a regular basis.

Physical activities were planned to help people maintain good health.

A complaints procedure was in place and people were confident that they would be listened to if they had a concern.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 December 2015

The service was well-led.

People felt that the service was well-led and that they felt included in the care and support they received.

Staff were knew the management structure within the service and the lines of accountability and understood their role in delivering care and support to people.

People were involved in the planning and development of the service.