Background to this inspection
Updated
31 August 2018
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This announced inspection took place on 4 July 2018 and was carried out by one inspector. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location was a small care home for younger adults who are often out during the day. We needed to be sure that they would be in.
Before the inspection we looked at information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually, to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at the notifications received from the service and reviewed all the intelligence CQC held, to help inform us about the level of risk for this service. We also contacted the local authority safeguarding and commissioning teams. We used this information to help us plan the inspection.
We looked at two people's care records and six medication administration records (MARs). We also looked at a selection of documentation in relation to the management and running of the service. This included stakeholder surveys, quality assurance audits, complaints, recruitment information for three members of staff, staff training records and policies and procedures and records of maintenance. We also took a tour of the premises to check general maintenance as well as the cleanliness and infection prevention and control practices within the service.
We spoke with six people who used the service. We spoke with the registered manager, housing and support manager, deputy manager and a member of care staff.
Updated
31 August 2018
This inspection took place on 4 July 2018 and was announced.
2 East Park Road is registered to provide care and accommodation for six people who have learning disabilities and an additional sensory impairment. The home is situated within walking distance of Harrogate town centre where there is a wide range of shops and leisure facilities. It is a large four storey semi-detached house with a paved garden area to the rear. The registered provider is Henshaws Society for Blind People. At the time of this inspection there were six people using the service.
2 East Park Road is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
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.
At our last inspection we rated the service ‘good’. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
The service had a registered manager who has been registered for the past sixteen years. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.
Staff had received safeguarding training and were aware of how to recognise and respond to risk. Individualised risk assessments were in place and people were supported with positive risk-taking to maintain their independence, choice and control.
We found that the management of medication was safely carried out.
Staff had been employed following robust recruitment and selection processes. There were sufficient numbers of staff who were deployed appropriately in the service to meet people’s needs and support people to live safely and as they had chosen to.
People that used the service were cared for and supported by qualified and competent staff that were regularly supervised and received appraisal regarding their personal performance. Communication was effective, People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People received adequate nutrition and hydration to maintain their levels of health and wellbeing. People had been included in planning menus and their feedback about the meals in the service had been listened to and acted on.
People were supported to live their lives to their fullest, as active members of the community which enhanced their lives. They were supported to follow their interests and engage in things important to them. People’s care plans were very person-centred and were reviewed regularly with them to ensure they were involved, and goals were set, which they were supported to achieve.
People were able to see their families as they wanted. There were no restrictions on when people could visit the service. People were supplied with the information they needed at the right time, were involved in all aspects of their care and were always asked for their consent before staff undertook support tasks.
The service was well-led; systems were in place to assess and improve the quality of the service and complaints were responded to thoroughly. There was an open culture and learning was encouraged to drive improvement.
Further information is in the detailed findings below