You are here

Easthill Home for Deaf People Good

Our most recent reports on this service are available as British sign language videos. You can watch the video of our December 2015 report here. British sign language videos of our July 2015 report and our November 2014 report are also available.
All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 9, 17 September 2014
Date of Publication: 1 November 2014
Inspection Report published 01 November 2014 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Enforcement action taken

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 9 September 2014 and 17 September 2014, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

We were supported on this inspection by an expert-by-experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

We used British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter to help us communicate with people and staff.

Our judgement

People who use the service were not asked for their views about their care and treatment. The provider did not have an effective system to regularly monitor the quality of the service that people received. The operation of the systems designed to identify, assess and manage risks relating to the health, welfare and safety of people were not always effective.

Reasons for our judgement

At our previous inspection, in January 2014 we identified that the views of people and staff were not sought and the provider was not operating an effective quality assurance system. We set a compliance action and the provider wrote to us telling us they would take action to meet the regulation by 30 April 2014. They then wrote to us again, telling us there had been delays and the regulation would be met by 4 June 2014. At this inspection we found the regulation was not being met.

The provider had not taken full account of the last inspection report prepared by the Commission relating to their compliance with the Regulations. The action plans they submitted, which were designed to achieve compliance, had not been completed. Approximately half of the actions identified had not been achieved. This meant people had not benefitted from changes designed to improve the quality of service provided.

The provider had used a questionnaire to collect the views of relatives of people using the service in August 2013. We saw responses were mainly positive and the manager told us no actions had been identified. The manager told us they had not conducted a similar survey of relatives or people using the service this year. They said staff discussed people’s care needs with them when their care plans were reviewed, and we saw records confirming this. One person was supported to provide feedback through the use of pictures, which met their communication needs.

Staff told us they could raise concerns and make suggestions informally to the manager. However, they said there had been no staff meetings for at least a year. The provider did not have a system in place for obtaining the views of staff. Consequently they were not able to come to an informed view in relation to the standard of care and treatment provided so they could make any necessary improvements.

We found audits of medicines were conducted and the findings used to ensure medicines were managed safely. However, the manager told us there had been no regular internal audits to assess and monitor the quality of any other aspects of the service. They had not identified concerns we found during our inspection, such as failing to support people to attend healthcare, failing to meet the requirements of the Department of Health Code of Practice on the prevention and control of infections and failing to assess and record people’s capacity to make decisions. This meant the provider could not be assured that people were protected from the risks of inappropriate or unsafe care. People using the service could not be sure that shortcomings in the service would be identified and corrected in a timely manner.

The provider had a system to manage general risks affecting all the people using the service. This included risks arising from excursions outside the home, games and activities. It also covered risks associated with the environment equipment and fittings, such as hot radiators and hoists. Actions were identified to reduce the likelihood of them occurring. Following a fire safety assessment in October 2013, the manager had developed an action plan to safeguard people in the event of a fire. We saw most actions had been completed; however, some actions were still outstanding, including the training of staff and the completion of work to bring a fire door up to the required standard. This meant the operation of the system designed to identify, assess and manage fire risks relating to the health, welfare and safety of people was not effective.

The service had a complaints process, and the manager showed us a complaint that had been received and dealt with promptly and in accordance with the home’s policy. People’s care files and the “Residents’ Handbook” contained information on how to complain. At our last inspection the manager told us they suspected people were not aware of the process and how to raise a complaint. They told us they would review the procedure and translate it into British