You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 15 and 22 August 2018 and was unannounced on the first day. We informed the provider of our intention to return on the second day. Harwood Road is a ‘care home’ for people with mental health needs. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The premises are equipped with 13 bedsits, which offer kitchen facilities and en-suite bathrooms. Additionally, there are two single occupancy bedrooms with a shared kitchen and bathroom, and a range of communal areas. At the time of the inspection there were 14 people living at the service and one person was in hospital. The building comprises four storeys and does not have a passenger lift. It is owned by a housing association.

The service had a registered manager, who was present on both days of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they 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 had registered with CQC after the previous inspection, having worked at the service as a team leader and acting manager.

A comprehensive inspection of this service was carried out on 4 and 5 May 2016 and the service was rated overall as ‘Good’. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated as ‘Good’ and Safe was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’.

In June 2017 the provider notified us that two people who used the service had died at the care home on the same day due to expected causes. This was subsequently found to be incorrect, as the deaths of both people were unexpected. In July 2017 we received information of concern from an anonymous source which indicated potential concerns about how the service supported people during very hot weather conditions and the management of risk. These concerns were reported to the local safeguarding team. Prior to the CQC carrying out an unannounced focussed inspection in October 2017 we were informed by the police that they were gathering additional information at the request of the Coroner’s Office, therefore our inspection did not examine the circumstances of the deaths. The inspection had focussed on safe and well-led only, which resulted in safe remaining ‘Requires Improvement’ and well-led being rated as ‘Requires Improvement’. The overall rating for the service was ‘Requires Improvement’. We found breaches of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, and good governance. The overall rating for the service was ‘Requires Improvement’.

Following the previous inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to meet the regulations. At this inspection we found that the provider had made significant improvements and taken appropriate action to meet the two breaches of regulations. We noted that the registered manager had remained in contact with the Coroner's Office and as there were no further investigations or queries, the bodies were released for burial. Staff had attended the funerals and there was a gathering for service users and staff in June 2018 to celebrate the lives of the two people who sadly passed away last year.

At the previous inspection we had found issues of concern in relation to the safety of the premises, which included the need for staff to undertake bespoke training to understand how to properly switch on and off the radiators. The service did not have a current electrical installations check by a competent person and there were issues with the lack of cleanliness and equipment to prevent cross-infection in the communal toilets. At this inspection we noted that staff had received appropriate training for using t

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

The service was safe.

Improvements had been made to the premises to promote people's safety.

Risks to people's safety were identified and addressed through risk management plans.

Safe systems were in place to support people with their prescribed medicines.

Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of harm and abuse.

Staffing levels were sufficient and the provider's recruitment practices ensured that suitable staff were appointed.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported by skilled and knowledgeable staff.

People were supported to meet their dietary and health care needs.

Improvements to the premises had created a more homely and comfortable environment.

People received support to manage their diets according to their

care plan.

People's rights were protected as the registered manager ensured the service upheld the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated in a kind and supportive manner by staff.

People's individual wishes and preferences were taken into account for the planning of their care.

People were assisted to maintain important friendships and relationships.

Care and support was provided in a manner that promoted people's dignity and privacy.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

The service was responsive.

People's needs were assessed, planned for and reviewed.

Staff supported people to engage in activities.

Complaints were taken seriously and responded to in an open way.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

The service was well-led.

The provider effectively implemented the findings of its quality monitoring.

Appropriate measures were followed to inform the Care Quality Commission of notifiable events at the service.

Systems were in place to seek and act on the views of people who used the service.

Audits were carried out to improve the quality of the service.