You are here

Archived: Helebridge House Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

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

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 21 April 2016

The service was not always safe. Risk associated with window openings had not taken place which meant there was a potential hazard for people using the service.

Recruitment records were in place but did not provide information about when safety checks had been returned.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff on duty to meet their needs.



Updated 21 April 2016

The service was effective. Staff were supported in their day to day roles.

Staff supported people to maintain a balanced diet appropriate to their dietary needs and preferences.

The service acted in accordance with the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People had access to other healthcare professionals as necessary.



Updated 21 April 2016

The service was caring. Staff were kind and compassionate and treated people with dignity and respect.

People spoke highly of the staff and told us that they were supported with kindness and had flexibility in their choice of routines.

Staff respected people�s wishes and provided care and support in line with those wishes.



Updated 21 April 2016

The service was responsive. People�s needs were responded to by staff who understood them.

People were supported to engage with the local community and to access a variety of recreational activities and employment.

There was a system to receive and handle complaints or concerns.


Requires improvement

Updated 21 April 2016

The service was not always well-led. Care plans contained limited information about the person.

People and their relatives were regularly consulted about how the service was run. However some policies and procedures did not reflect current guidance and legislation.

The staff team told us they were supported by the registered manager.

The service focussed on ensuring people had fulfilling lives and experiences.