You are here

Archived: Helebridge House Requires improvement

Reports


Inspection carried out on 29 February 2016

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 23 December 2013

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

At our previous inspection on 28 October 2013 we found that the storage of medicines was not in line with relevant legislation and guidance and the recording and signing for creams was not evident. During our most recent visit we found that improvements had been made.

People did not comment or raise concerns about how the home kept their medicines safe. Instead people spoke about Christmas and how they were looking forward to Christmas dinner with all the trimmings. People appeared relaxed in our company chatting about the events happening over the next few days.

Inspection carried out on 28 October 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our visit we were told that there were six people living at Helebridge House. We spoke to all six people living at the home, spent time observing the care people were receiving, spoke to two members of staff, which included the registered manager and looked at two people’s care files in detail.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and staff acted in accordance with their wishes.

We spent time talking to people who lived at Helebridge House and observing the interactions between them and staff. People’s comments included: “I love it here. The staff are wonderful”; “I am well looked after”; “I like going to the day centre” and “I go for walks, shopping, singing lessons and the life centre.”

We saw the medication records which were appropriately signed by staff when administering a person’s medication. However, the same degree of recording was not evident when a person was prescribed a cream. This posed a risk that an overview of people’s skin conditions would not be flagged up and acted upon. For example it might not be noticed if a cream was not working effectively.

We observed that staff were well organised, motivated and competent in their roles. Staff provided support in a caring manner making sure that people were comfortable and content.

Inspection carried out on 15 December 2012

During a routine inspection

During our visit we spoke with the six people who lived in the home and the registered manager. After our visit we spoke with a social care professional on the telephone.

We looked around the home and found that it was clean and hygienic. We examined the care files belonging to three people who lived in the home and found that they were up to date and reviewed as people's needs/wishes changed.

People told us that they were happy living in the home and talked to us about their personal routines and the activities they enjoyed. We found that people were involved and supported to make decisions about their care and support needs and their needs were well met by the staff team. Comments from people who lived in the home included "We are very, very happy", "I love it here" and "They are very helpful to me".

People saw healthcare professionals on a regular basis or when they needed them. Staff were friendly and respected people's rights to privacy, dignity, and independence. There were enough staff to meet people's needs and additional staff were available when required. However there were occasions when the home was not staffed at night. The staff had received sufficient training to enable them to carry out their roles competently.

There were effective systems for safeguarding people from abuse. Legal safeguards, which protect people unable to make decisions about their own welfare, were understood by the registered manager and used to protect people's rights.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)