We carried out a review of the data available to us about Hudson Street on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Hudson Street, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service: People told us they received a good service and felt safe. Risks were well managed. The provider learned from previous accidents and incidents to reduce future risks. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities about safeguarding. Arrangements were in place for the safe administration of medicines.
There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of people. Staff were suitably trained and supported in their role. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure, and carried out relevant vetting checks when they employed staff.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them. The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support in the following ways; promotion of choice and control, independence and inclusion. People’s support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible to gain new skills and become more independent.
People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. They helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The provider had a complaints procedure and people were aware of how to make a complaint. An effective quality assurance process was in place. People and staff were regularly consulted about the quality of the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Rating at last inspection: Good (published December 2016).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection. It was scheduled based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
The service had 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.
This inspection took place on 25 October 2016. At our previous inspection on 11 June 2015, we saw that people were not safe because there was inadequate maintenance and a lack of cleanliness. In addition, audits carried out had not identified these as areas for improvement.
At this inspection, improvements had been made and the service was safely maintained and clean. Audits had improved and the registered manager had drawn up action plans arising from the results of these.
Medicines were safely handled to protect people. The registered manager assessed risks in consultation with people and plans were put in place to minimise these. Risk plans were subject to regular review with people involved.
Staff were able to tell us what they would do to ensure people were safe and people told us they felt safe at the service. The service had sufficient suitable staff to care for people and staff were safely recruited.
The environment was safe for people, though their individual rooms were at times disorganised and cluttered which could lead to risks around fire safety and trip hazards. However, staff explained they worked alongside people to support them to maintain their environment safely and we saw that they intervened when necessary to protect people.
People were protected by the infection control procedures in the service.
Staff supported people appropriately when they had behaviour which may challenge others and they consulted with people about their risk plans.
Staff had received suitable training to ensure that people received care appropriate for their needs.
Staff had received up to date training in Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff understood that people should be consulted about their care and they understood the principles of the MCA and DoLS. People were protected around their mental capacity.
People’s preferences around food and drink were recorded. People were supported to eat healthy meals and they told us they enjoyed the food. Specialist advice around people’s nutrition, medical care and mental health needs was sought and advice was followed.
People were treated with kindness and compassion. We saw staff had a good rapport with people whilst treating them with dignity and respect. Staff had knowledge and understanding of people’s needs. Care plans provided detailed information about people’s individual needs and preferences. Records and observations provided evidence that people were treated in a way which encouraged them to feel valued and cared about.
People were supported to engage in daily activities they enjoyed and which supported them towards independence. Daily activities were in line with people’s preferences and interests. Staff were responsive to people’s wishes and understood their personal histories and social networks so they could support them in the way they preferred. Care plans were kept up to date and reviewed each month. People were given opportunities to take part in drawing up their care plans, their reviews and to give their views which were acted upon.
People told us their complaints were responded to and the results of complaint investigations were recorded. Everyone we spoke with told us that if they had concerns, they were addressed by the registered manager who responded quickly.
The service had an effective quality assurance system in place. Hudson Street was well managed and staff were well supported in their role. The registered manager had a clear understanding of their role. They consulted appropriately with people who lived at the service, people who were important to them, staff and health care professionals, in order to identify required improvements and put these in place. Records around good governance were clear and accurate and led to planned improvements.
This inspection took place on 18 June 2015 and was unannounced. The last inspection was on 11 June 2013 and no breaches of regulations were identified at that inspection.
Hudson Street is one of fourteen services owned by Milewood Healthcare Limited. The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 12 people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. Accommodation is provided in two adjacent terraced houses in the seaside town of Whitby on the North Yorkshire coast. On the day of our inspection there were 12 people living at the service.
There was a registered manager employed at this service. 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.
We found that the service was not always cleaned to a high standard which was a breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008(Regulated Activities) 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
We also made a recommendation that the provider should look at good practice when auditing the service as the issue of cleanliness was not identified and addressed properly.
Staff were recruited safely and there were sufficient numbers to meet people needs. They had been trained in subjects that were relevant to their roles.
Care and support was person centred and there were plans and risk assessments in place which reflected this. Medicines were managed safely. People had access to health and social care professionals when it was necessary.
People had a choice of what they wished to eat and were supported to prepare food if necessary. They could eat wherever and whenever they chose.
People’s safety was taken into account by the service because the registered manager had ensured that staff were aware of abuse and how they could recognise and report any events.
The service worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.Peoples consent was sought when appropriate and this was recorded in care records. Deprivation of liberty safeguards had been authorised in some cases and these were reviewed in line with current guidance.
Staff were friendly and respectful. They supported people who used the service to undertake a variety of activities within the local community.
We observed the culture of the service to be caring and person centred.
We saw that care and support was delivered in a way that ensured people remained safe whilst looking at their goals. People who used the service told us they could confidently discuss their plans and the actions being taken to meet each goal. From the care files and discussion with the staff, we confirmed that a wide range of healthcare professionals provided support.
We saw that medication was managed appropriately and in a safe way.
The environment was properly maintained and any necessary repairs were carried out once they had been identified. There was a fire risk assessment in place and the fire exits were clearly signed. Staff told us they received regular training in fire safety.
There was a comprehensive system for looking at the quality of the service provided. Regular audits of the system were carried out by the manager and by people from outside the service. Actions identified during the audits formed part of the service business plan. This meant that the service continued to develop.
People told us how moving to the home had been a wise decision, as they had learnt skills that would assist them to live independently in the community.
We spoke with a healthcare professional who visited the home. They said the service provided positive, consistent care with good outcomes for people.