Archived: Helebridge House

Updated 21 April 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 29 February 2016. The inspection team consisted of one inspector. Before the inspection we reviewed previous inspection reports and other information we held about the service including notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law.

We spoke with five people who used the service. Where some people had limited communication we observed how they responded with staff and others. We spoke with the registered manager and two staff members. Following the inspection visit we contacted three relatives.

We looked at care records for three people, three staff training records, three recruitment files, medicine records and other records associated with the management of the service including quality audits.

Updated 21 April 2016

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of Helebridge House on 29 February 2016. This was an announced inspection. We told the provider two days before our inspection visit that we would be coming. This was because we wanted to make sure people would be at the service to speak with us. The service was last inspected in October 2013. The service was meeting regulations at that time.

Helebridge House provides care and accommodation for up to six people who have a learning disability. At the time of the inspection six people were living at the service.

There was a registered manager 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.

Window restrictors were not in place for first floor windows which had a wide opening and may pose risk to some people using the service. The registered manager confirmed they had purchased window restrictors after the inspection visit to ensure people were safe.

Care records were not detailed or person centred and did not contain specific information to guide staff who were supporting people. There were brief summaries in areas of support required but no life history profiles about each person in a format which was meaningful for people. This included large print and pictorial information. Staff said they knew people’s needs because they had been supporting them for a long time and information was shared daily between the registered manager and staff.

Records identified risk factors and how to support people’s life choices. For example going out into the community. However there was no clear guidance for staff as to how individual risk factors should be managed.

People told us they were kept informed about their relatives care and support. People said staff spoke with them and asked their views on the care they wanted.

Staff completed a recruitment process to ensure they had the appropriate skills and knowledge to carry out their role. A record of when a Disclosure and Barring Service check (DBS) had been received and when the staff member had commenced employment would show the checks had been completed before the employee had commenced working in the service. Photo identification for staff members were not on file but the registered manager acknowledged they would be put in place.

People living at Helebridge House were supported to lead fulfilled lives which reflected their individual preferences and interests. There were enough staff available to make sure everyone was supported according to their own needs.

Staff members were available to support peoples’ needs and engage in activities. Staffing levels were flexible so they could respond to people who at times required additional support. Staff on duty supported people respectfully. People told us that staff supported them to maintain their independence and we saw evidence of this within the care documentation we viewed. For example supporting people to develop life skills including cooking and supporting people to access links with the local community.

Staff were trained in a range of subjects which were relevant to the needs of the people they supported. There was a small staff team who the registered manager new well and training was discussed on a regular basis. New staff undertook training in induction standards leading to the care certificate award.

There were systems in place to ensure people who used the service were protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable of the action to take if they had concerns in this area.

Where people did not have the capacity to make certain decisions, the service acted in accordance with legal requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff understood what restrictive practice meant and how the principles of the legislation should be applied.

The environment was of a homely nature. Rooms were personalised where people had wanted to include their own items.

People knew how to complain and we saw people had the opportunity to discuss how they felt about the service. People told us they were regularly asked if they were happy with the service they received. One person told us “I wouldn’t hesitate to say something if I was not happy”. A relative said, “If I was concerned about anything I feel confident it would get sorted out”.

The system for measuring quality assurance was informal. People and their relatives were regularly consulted about how the home was run. Relatives said, “We are always told about any changes and when we visit we are always made welcome” and “We have regular contact and get to know what’s going on. We are always made to feel welcome and involved”.

We identified breach's of the regulations. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.