Archived: Hillside

This inspection took place on 3 and 4 December 2015 and was unannounced.

Hillside provides residential care and support to five adults with learning disabilities and enables them to maintain their own independence. The service is situated in the suburbs of Wellingborough, Northamptonshire. There were five people using this service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager who was also the provider. 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.

There was a good emphasis by the provider and staff on protecting people from possible harm. Staff knew how to report any concerns about people’s welfare to the appropriate authorities. People were provided with information in an easy to read format and were aware they had an independent advocate who they could raise any concerns with. The staff team were passionate about providing people with positive and different experiences. They made this possible by respecting people’s choices and then supporting them to take positive risks to achieve their wishes and aspirations.

We found staffing levels at the service were appropriate for the number of people living there. Some people who used the service required one to one support and we saw this was provided.

There were safe recruitment procedures in place. All staff were subject to a probation period and to disciplinary procedures if they did not meet the required standards of practice.

Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely and correctly. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and maintained relevant records that were accurate.

People told us and records confirmed that all of the staff received regular training in mandatory subjects. In addition, we saw that specialist training specific to the needs of people using the service had been completed. This had provided staff with the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs in an effective and individualised way. We also saw that people using the service and relatives had been included in some areas of training. People’s consent to care and treatment was sought in line with current legislation. All staff were trained in the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and were knowledgeable about the requirements of the legislation.

People told us that with support from staff, they received a wholesome and balanced diet. As part of their independent living skills and development, all were supported to prepare and cook meals for each other on a daily rota basis. People told us the food was varied with options always available. Everyone was involved with menu planning and to support family orientation within the service, people and staff ate their meals together. There were regular reviews of people’s health and the service responded immediately to people’s changing needs. People were assisted to attend appointments with various health and social care professionals to ensure they received care, treatment and support for their specific conditions.

The staff team were passionate about providing a service that placed people and their families at the very heart of the service. Staff were intuitive and they were able to anticipate what people wanted and responded appropriately to them. We saw examples of creative care that helped make the service a place where people felt included and consulted. Care plans were detailed; person centred and clearly described their care, treatment and support needs. These were regularly evaluated, reviewed and updated. The care plan format was pictorial and was easy for people who used the service to understand. We saw evidence to demonstrate that people were fully involved in all aspects of their care plans and service delivery.

The service had an independent advocate who visited the service weekly where people who used the service could gain independent advice and support if they required it as well as encouraging people to speak out about things that mattered to them. We found that people had the opportunity to influence who delivered their care and/or support and were involved in the recruitment process. People were able to spend private time in quiet areas when they chose to. Staff provided support that was based on mutual respect and equality. As a result, people felt really cared for and that they mattered.

People’s needs were comprehensively assessed and care plans gave clear guidance on how people were to be supported. Care was personalised so that each person’s support reflected their preferences. We saw that people were at the centre of their care and found clear evidence that people’s care and support was planned with them and not for them. The service was flexible and responsive to people’s individual needs and wishes. People were supported to attend a range of educational, occupational and leisure activities as well as being able to develop their own independent living skills.

The provider had an effective pictorial complaints procedure and people were supported to use this with the support of an independent advocate. Staff were responsive to people’s anxieties and concerns and acted promptly to resolve them.

The provider had effective quality assurance systems in place, which was based on seeking the views of people, their relatives and other health and social care professionals. People who used the service also took part in this process. There was a systematic cycle of planning, action and review, reflecting aims and outcomes for people who used the service. The staff were highly committed and found innovative ways to provide people with positive care experiences.

.