You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The inspection took place on 10 April 2018 and was unannounced.

Huntington House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or 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. Huntington House accommodates up to 39 people in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection there were 32 people living at Huntington House.

There was a registered manager in post who was present during our inspection. 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 of Huntington House on 12 December 2016 we identified three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These related concerns regarding insufficient staffing levels, care plans and assessments not containing detailed guidance and the management oversight at the service. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-Led to at least good. At this inspection we found significant improvements had been made in all areas.

Sufficient staff were available to ensure people’s needs were met in a timely manner and that staff had time to spend with people. Staff employed underwent robust recruitment checks to ensure they were suitable to work at the service. A programme of training and supervision was available to support staff in their role and this was monitored by the registered manager. Staff told us they felt supported and that their ideas were listened to.

People were protected from the risk of abuse as staff understood their responsibilities in safeguarding people. Risk assessments were completed to identify potential risks to people’s safety and management plans implemented to reduce and monitor these. Accidents and incidents were reported and monitored to ensure any trends were identified and lessons were learnt. Safe infection control procedures were followed by staff. People lived in a clean and well-maintained environment which was adapted for their needs. Regular health and safety checks were completed and equipment was serviced as required. There was a contingency plan in place to ensure people would continue to receive their care in the event of an emergency.

People’s medicines were managed safely and staff competence was checked. People had access to healthcare professionals and advice provided was followed. Clinical review meetings were held weekly to review people’s healthcare needs. People’s legal rights were protected as the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed and staff understood how this impacted on their role.

People were cared for by staff who showed them kindness and compassion. Staff knew people’s needs well and took time to engage with them. There was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere throughout the service. People were encouraged to maintain their independence and keep in contact with those who were important to them. Visitors were made to feel welcome and there were no restrictions on the times they were able to visit.

Prior to moving into the service people were involved in an assessment process which ensured the service would be able to meet their needs. Detailed care plans were in place which were highly personalised and provided good guidance to staff. Staff knew people’s needs well and were able to describe the different approaches they took when supporting people. There was a range of activities offered which took into account people’s previous interests, hobbies and occupations.

There wa

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The service was safe.

People were supported by sufficient, skilled staff.

Robust recruitment procedures were in place to ensure that suitable staff were employed.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in keeping people safe.

Risks to people’s safety were assessed and plans implemented to minimise these.

People lived in a safe, clean environment.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The service was effective.

People’s rights were respected as the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed.

People were supported by staff who received training and supervision to support them in their role.

Assessments were completed with people prior to them moving to Huntington House to ensure their needs could be met.

People were provided a varied choice of nutritious food.

People had access to a range of healthcare professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who knew them well.

People’s dignity and privacy were respected.

People were encouraged to maintain their independence.

Visitors were made to feel welcome and there were no restrictions on visiting times.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans contained detailed information regarding people’s needs and preferences.

Staff were aware of people’s individual needs and how they wished to receive their care.

There was a wide range of personalised activities for people to take part in.

People were aware of how to make a complaint and any concerns were responded to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The service was well-led.

There was an open and positive culture within the service.

Quality audit systems were in place and any shortfalls identified were addressed.

People and staff were able to contribute to the running of the service through regular meetings and annual surveys.

Staff said they felt supported by provider and registered manager.

Records were securely stored.