You are here

Hoffmann Foundation for Autism - 4 Park Avenue Requires improvement

We are carrying out checks at Hoffmann Foundation for Autism - 4 Park Avenue. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 30 August 2018

This inspection took place on 24 July 2018 and was unannounced. The service was last inspected on 22 and 28 November 2017, where we found the provider to be in breach of six regulations in relation to person-centred care, dignity and respect, safe care and treatment, premises and equipment, staffing and good governance. The service was rated Inadequate and was placed in ‘special measures’. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve all five key questions to at least good. At the inspection on 24 July 2018, we found the provider had made improvements but remains Requires Improvement. This is the fourth consecutive time the service has been rated Requires Improvement.

The Hoffmann Foundation for Autism – 4 Park Avenue is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection

The Hoffmann Foundation for Autism – 4 Park Avenue is a residential care home registered to provide accommodation and personal care support for up to six people who have learning disabilities and may have autism, Asperger's Syndrome or display characteristics that fall within the autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection, four people were living at the service.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

Risks to people were identified, assessed and mitigated. Staff were trained in safeguarding and whistleblowing. They were knowledgeable in how to safeguard people against avoidable harm and abuse. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reported. There were processes in place to share with the staff team lessons learnt from the incidents to minimise reoccurrence. People were safely supported with their medicine management needs. The provider followed safe recruitment procedures and there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs safely. Premises were renovated and bathrooms and toilets were fixed. A new cleaner had been appointed and the service was clean and without malodour.

People’s needs were assessed and staff knew people’s needs and abilities. Healthcare professionals were consulted in relation to people’s nutrition and hydration needs. However, their recommendations were not always appropriately followed. People were offered different types of food and staff promoted a nutritionally balanced diet. Staff gave people choices and supported them with making decisions.

Staff were trained in equality and diversity, and dignity in care. We observed caring interactions between people and staff, and saw people were treated with dignity and respect. People were encouraged to carry out daily living tasks to maintain their independence. People’s cultural and religious needs were identified and met.

People’s care plans were personalised and reviewed. Staff knew people’s likes and dislikes. People were supported to participate in activities as per their hobbies and interests. The service encouraged relatives and people to raise concerns and make complaints. The complaints procedure and response letter needed to be updated to be in line with the provider’s complaints policy.

The provider had intr

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 August 2018

The service was safe.

People’s risk assessments were reviewed and gave instructions to staff on how to provide safe care. Staff knew how to keep people safe from harm and abuse.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to meet people’s needs safely. People were appropriately supported with their medicines needs.

Staff were trained in infection control and followed correct procedures to prevent spread of infection. There were appropriate environment health and safety checks in place to ensure people’s safety.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 30 August 2018

The service was not consistently effective.

People’s needs were assessed and healthcare professionals were consulted to meet people’s individual needs. However, not all people had attended ongoing healthcare appointments.

Staff received regular training and supervision to do their job effectively. People were supported to maintain a nutritionally balanced diet. Staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff gave people choices and asked their permission before supporting them.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 August 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported to express their views and received care in a dignified way. The living environment promoted people’s dignity. Staff were trained in equality and diversity.

People’s religious and cultural needs were recorded in their care plans and were met. Staff encouraged and supported people to remain as independent as they could.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People’s care plans were reviewed and updated. Staff conducted monthly reviews of people’s care goals and aspirations. People were supported to participate in a range of activities and to access the community.

People’s care plans recorded their end of life care wishes. People and relatives were encouraged to raise concerns and make complaints.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 30 August 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

The new service manager had resigned from the post and their post had been advertised. The internal audits did not always identify gaps that were picked up during this inspection.

Staff told us they felt supported. The service had made lots of improvement since the last inspection. There were new systems and processes to improve the quality of care delivery. The provider engaged with people, relatives and staff to seek their feedback on how to improve the service.