You are here

Rossendale Hospice Integrated Health Care Centre Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 January 2017

This inspection took place on 28 and 29 September 2016. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection because we needed to make sure that the registered manager was present.

Rossendale Hospice Integrated Health Care Centre provides care for people living with cancer and other life-limiting conditions in their own homes. They also have a day therapy service where people have access to a wide range of therapies and support. These included nurse assessment, reviews, complementary therapies, psychological support and access to a consultant clinic each week.

The service had 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. At the last inspection on 23 March 2014, we found the service was meeting the regulations that were applicable at the time.

During this inspection we found the service was meeting the requirements of the current legislation.

People who used the service told us they felt safe and raised no concerns about the care that they received. Staff had been given training in recognising the signs of abuse and how to report any possible concerns. Staff we spoke with told us the appropriate measures they would take when dealing with any allegations of abuse.

Effective recruitment systems were in place. This helped ensure the provider recruited staff appropriate for the position with which they were employed. Appropriate checks such as references, disclosure baring services checks, proof of identity and professional qualification’s had been completed. Duty rotas and staff we spoke with confirmed there was appropriate amount of suitably qualified staff to meet people’s individual needs. The rotas included assessments that identified if more staff were required and if it was the case then additional was provided.

There were systems in place to assess and manage risks. One example was supporting staff in the event of a person bleeding. The provider demonstrated their commitment to ensuring risks in the service were identified and measures had been put into place to mitigate these risks.

People who used the service and relatives were positive and complimentary about the knowledge and skills of the staff team. All staff we spoke with confirmed that there was a robust training programme in place. The clinical services manager told us online training had been introduced. We observed a staff member completing online training during our inspection. The training matrix confirmed relevant training had been undertaken by the staff team.

Staff told us the management team were approachable and supportive and operated an ‘open door policy.’ Clinical supervision was available and accessed by staff. Staff we spoke with confirmed regular appraisals of their roles took place.

It was clear the involvement of the multi-disciplinary team was an integral part of the care provided by the service. Staff and professionals who worked with the service confirmed systems were in place to ensure a seamless service. The care delivered clearly met people’s individual needs. .

There was an established befriending service that received very positive feedback about the support it offered to people who may be socially isolated.

They also offered a range of complimentary therapies and a counselling service to people who used the service and families. Complimentary therapies, aim to treat the whole person, not just the symptoms of disease. People told us they enjoyed the therapies and a relative of one person told us this was also offered to them after their loved one had died.

Relatives and people who used the service were involved in the development and planning of their care. A range of health professionals took an ac

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 13 January 2017

The service was safe.

Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff were aware of the correct procedure to take when dealing with any allegations. Procedures were in place to guide staff.

Safe recruitments procedures were in place. This helped to ensure appropriate staff were recruited to protect people who used the service.

Risks were managed effectively and measures were in place to mitigate any risks to protect people.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 January 2017

The service was effective.

Staff employed by the service had received training relevant to their role. We saw online training taking place in the service during our inspection.

People had access to a wide range of health professionals to ensure they received appropriate and timely care.

Meals provided to people in the day therapy centre looked appetising and nutritious. People we spoke with told us they enjoyed the meals they were provided with.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 January 2017

The service was caring.

People who used the service received care and support that met their individual needs. People, families and professional’s told us they were extremely happy with the care delivered.

People and their families had access to complimentary therapies and counselling services.

People told us their privacy and dignity was respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 January 2017

The service was responsive.

People who used the service and their family confirmed they had been involved in the development of their care plans. People had access to a range of professionals if their condition changed or a review was required.

The service worked closely with health professionals which promoted the continuity of care for people.

People were happy with the service and raised no complaints. There was an effective system in place to deal with complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 January 2017

The service was well-led.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service.

Feedback about the leadership and management of the service was positive. Staff told us the registered manager was approachable.

Feedback about the service was actively encouraged by the management team. Comments received were complimentary about the support people received.