Archived: Harry Priestley House

The inspection took place on 12 May 2015 and was unannounced. Our last inspection of this service took place in June 2013 when no breaches of legal requirements were identified.

Harry Priestley House is in the market town of Thorne, near Doncaster. It is registered to provide accommodation for up to 12 people who require personal care. The home specialises in supporting adults with learning disabilities.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

We asked people who used the service if the staff were caring and they said they were. For instance, one person said of a particular member of staff, “She is lovely, she’s a lovely woman, very cuddly.”

We spoke with people who used the service and they all said they felt safe. We spoke with staff, who had a clear understanding of safeguarding people from abuse and of what action they would take if they suspected abuse. Staff members had raised safeguarding concerns appropriately and this showed that staff put the safety and welfare of the people who used the service first.

We found that care and support was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people were safe. The individual plans we looked at included risk assessments which identified any risk associated with people’s care. We saw risk assessments had been devised to help minimise and monitor the risk, while encouraging people to be as independent as possible.

There were enough staff with the right skills, knowledge and experience to meet people’s needs. We saw the staff training record for the service. This showed that staff were provided with appropriate training to help them meet people’s needs.

The home was particularly well decorated and maintained. People were involved in choosing the way the house was decorated and most had their names and pictures on their bedroom doors. One person was living with dementia and the registered manager explained that they had taken advice from a specialist team on how to decorate parts of the home to help the person connect with the world around them.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of this and said they would speak to the most senior member of staff on duty.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient to maintain a balanced diet and snacks were available in-between. The people we spoke with told us they liked the food. People were supported to maintain good health, to have access to healthcare services. We looked at people’s records and found they had received support from healthcare professionals when required.

People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We saw staff were aware of people’s needs and the best ways to support them and encouraged people to maintain their independence. However, people who used the service did not have their own copy of their care plan and we discussed with registered manager.

People’s individual plans included information about who was important to them, such as their family and friends. We saw that people took part in activities in the home and in the community.

The service had a complaints procedure, which was available in an ‘easy read’ version to help people to understand how to raise any concerns they might have.

There was evidence that people were consulted about the service provided. We saw that residents’ house meetings took place and the company arranged for an independent advocate to help people to fill out satisfaction surveys, and to comment on their experience of the service provided.

The registered manager and members of the staff team undertook quality and safety audits and there was learning from incidents or investigations and appropriate changes were implemented, including action taken to minimise the risk of further incidents.

The staff members we spoke with said they really liked working in the home. The staff told us staff meetings took place each month and they were confident to discuss ideas and raise issues.