You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 July 2018

This inspection took place on 3 July 2018 and was unannounced. Susan Hampshire House provides accommodation and personal care for 16 people. People who live at the home have a learning disability. Three of the sixteen beds were used to provide short stay breaks for people living in the community either alone or with family. There were 12 permanent people living at Susan Hampshire House at the time of the inspection. There was no one on respite. This was an unannounced inspection, which meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.

People in care homes receive accommodation and 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.

A manager was 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.

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. People were very much part of their local community and care was tailored to the person. The service was planning to review the block purchase of the short breaks because they recognised this could be upsetting to people who lived at Susan Hampshire House.

Improvements had been made to the service to ensure people’s care plans were current and reflected their needs. Systems were in place to monitor this.

People were safe. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and to spend time socialising with them. Staffing was reviewed to ensure it was safe when people stayed at the home for short breaks. Risk assessments were carried out to enable people to receive care with minimum risk to themselves or others. People received their medicines safely.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because there were clear procedures in place to recognise and respond to abuse and staff had been trained in how to follow the procedures. Systems were in place to ensure people were safe including risk management, checks on the equipment, fire systems and safe recruitment processes.

People received effective care because staff had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support them. People's healthcare needs were monitored by the staff. Other health and social care professionals were involved in the care and support of the people living at Susan Hampshire House.

People were treated in a dignified, caring manner, which demonstrated that their rights were protected. Where people lacked the capacity to make choices and decisions, staff ensured people’s rights were protected by involving relatives or other professionals in the decision making process.

The home provided a caring service to people. People, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about the care and support they received. Staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and very committed to providing care that was tailored to the person. People were treated with kindness and compassion. People were supported to keep in touch with friends and family.

People received a responsive service. Care and support was personalised and person led. People were supported to take part in a variety of activities and trips out based on their interests and aspirations. These were being reviewed as it was recognised people had been doing the same activities for many years. People were involved and included in the running of the home.

The home was well-led. The registered manager and provider had monit

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 July 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. This was because there were clear procedures in place to recognise and respond to abuse. Staff were trained in how to follow the procedures.

People were cared for in a safe environment that was clean and regularly maintained. Risks were minimised to ensure people were safe whilst ensuring their independence. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people�s individual needs and recruitment checks ensured staff were suitable to work at the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 July 2018

The service was effective.

People had access to a healthy and varied diet, which provided them with choice. Other health and social care professionals were involved in the care of people and their advice was acted upon. People�s health care needs were being met.

Staff were knowledgeable about the legislation to protect people in relation to making decisions and safeguards in respect of deprivation of liberty.

Staff had received appropriate training to enable them to support people effectively. Support mechanisms were in place for staff.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 July 2018

The service continues to be caring.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 July 2018

The service had made the necessary improvements to ensure they were responsive to people�s needs.

People received care that was responsive to their needs. Improvement had been made to care plans, clearly describing how people wanted to be supported. People were treated as individuals.

People were supported to take part in regular activities in the home and the community taking into consideration their interests.

People could be confident that if they had any concerns these would be responded to appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 July 2018

The necessary improvements had been made to ensure the service was well led.

Staff felt supported and worked well as a team. Staff told us they enjoyed working in the home and there was good communication with the focus being on the people that lived at Susan Hampshire House.

There were systems to monitor and improve the quality of the service. Checks were carried out to ensure care was delivered safely and effectively.