You are here

HF Trust - 330 Westward Road Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 17 September 2014
Date of Publication: 21 October 2014
Inspection Report published 21 October 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 17 September 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector, who answered the five questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from two records we reviewed.

Is the service safe?

We found the service to be safe because people were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Staff knew what to do when safeguarding concerns were raised and they followed effective policies and procedures.

When people were at risk, staff followed effective risk management policies and procedures to protect them. Staff supported people to take informed risks with minimal necessary restrictions to as far as possible protect their welfare. People told us, �Staff help me to do things for myself.�

Systems such as accident and complaint recording were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The service was in the process of re-assessing the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) for people who use the service and were having discussions with local authorities about this. This meant that people were protected from discrimination and their human rights were protected.

Staff demonstrated they knew their responsibilities in relation to infection control. The service kept the home clean and hygienic to protect people against acquiring healthcare associated infections.

Is the service effective?

We found the service to be effective because there was an advocacy service available if people needed it, this meant when required people could access additional support.

Care plans reflected people�s current individual needs, choices and preferences. People�s health was regularly monitored to identify any changes that may require additional support or intervention.

Staff supported people to take informed risks with minimal necessary restrictions. The environment enabled staff to meet people�s diverse care, cultural and support needs.

Staff had effective support, induction, supervision and appraisal.

Is the service caring?

We found the service to be caring because people were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. Staff responded in a caring way to people�s needs when they needed it.

People�s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people�s wishes. Appropriate professionals were involved in planning, management and decision making.

Staff knew the people they were caring for and supporting. People were as independent as they wanted to be. Staff told us, ��Everyone is encouraged to do as much as they can for themselves�

Is the service responsive?

We found the service responsive because, where appropriate, a person�s capacity was considered under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. When a person did not have capacity, decisions were always made in their best interests. Advocacy support was provided when needed.

People had their individual needs regularly assessed and met. There were arrangements in place to speak to people about what was important to them. People we spoke with said, �I like staff� and �They�re good.� One relative commented on the annual questionnaire, �We are happy and impressed with the way our relative is cared for.�

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. People had access to activities that were important and relevant to them and were protected from social isolation. People we spoke with told us they were able to choose what they did and said, �I get to do lots� and �I�m very happy, I�ve got plenty to do.�

Is the service well-led?

There was a registered manager in post on the day of our visit.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving. Robust quality assurance and governance systems were in place and used to drive continuous improvement.

Concerns and complaints were used as an opportunity for learning or improvement.