Archived: Henshaws Society for Blind People - 16 Spring Mount Harrogate

Henshaws Society for Blind People 16 Spring Mount is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided. Both aspects were looked at during this inspection. The service can accommodate up to six people. Six people were living at the service when we inspected. All of the people had a sensory impairment and/ or learning disability and/ or autism spectrum disorder. The service supports people between the ages of 18 and 65.

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. We saw improvements in responsiveness and this area was now Outstanding. 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.

There were systems in place to keep people safe, including safe recruitment, staffing levels, appropriate use of risk assessments and completed safety and equipment checks of the building. Where people presented with behaviours which may challenge the service they had care plans in place containing information about when this behaviour may arise and how to support the person. We saw that staff had not been observed as competent to complete a specific clinical procedure. The registered manager and local district nursing team were working together to address this.

Staff had received the appropriate training and support to enable them to deliver effective care and support. They worked together to ensure people received consistent support and accessed healthcare services when required. People were at the centre of their care planning and were supported to be as independent as possible. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff assisted them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service promoted this practice.

People and their relatives spoke highly of the care at the service. People had meaningful interactions and relationships with others living at the service and staff. This meant people knew staff would provide them with emotional support when needed and treat them respectfully. Information including the complaints policy and safeguarding was readily available in people’s preferred format to meet the communication needs of people living at the service.

People received highly personalised care. They set their own goals and were supported to achieve these. People had opportunities to try new activities and develop specific interests. Staff worked flexibly to ensure people could attend their activities and understood the importance of these to individuals.

There was a registered manager in post, who was available for people, their relatives and staff to speak to. Feedback and suggestions were welcomed. People were actively involved in making decisions about the service and making changes that met their needs. There was evidence of these changes being made and people benefiting from this.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

16 Spring Mount is registered with the Care Quality Commission [CQC] to provide accommodation and personal care for six people who have learning disabilities and an additional sensory impairment.

At the time of the inspection five people were living at the service.

There was no registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

A manager was in post at the time of our inspection and they were in the process of applying to become registered with the CQC. We have called them the ‘manager’ throughout this report.

Staff understood the importance of ensuring people were safe from abuse and had received training in how to identify and report anything they may witness or become aware of. People were cared for by staff who had been recruited safely and were provided in enough numbers to meet their needs. The environment was clean and audits undertaken by the manager ensured people were not exposed to the risk of cross infection. People received their medicines as prescribed by their GP and staff had received training in the safe handling of medicines.

People were involved with menu planning and staff ensured they lead a healthy lifestyle. People were supported to access their GP and other health care professionals when needed. Staff received training which was relevant to their role and this was updated as required. Staff were trained in, and understood the principles of, the Mental Capacity Act [MCA] and understood when and how these principles applied.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring and understood their needs. People had good, relaxed, open relationships with the staff and interaction was respectful. There was also a lot of laughter and sharing of jokes which created a safe, friendly atmosphere. People were involved with the formulation of their care plans and had signed to confirm they had understood and agreed the content. Staff respected people’s dignity and they were provided with the space to exercise their right to privacy.

Staff had access to information which described the person and their preferences. People were supported to undertake activities which included maintaining and developing independent living and domestic skills. People were also supported to choose and attend college courses which were part of their agreed goals. People had the opportunity to make complaints and these were acknowledged and investigated to the complainant’s satisfaction. People were also provided with information about outside agencies they could approach to raise concerns.

People were consulted about the running of the service. Surveys and meetings were used to gather the views of people who used the service. It was discussed with the manager that it might be beneficial to gather views of others who have an interest in people’s welfare, for example, relatives and health care professionals. The manager held meetings with the staff so they could contribute to the running of the service. Regular audits were undertaken to ensure people lived in a service which was safe and well run.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff and people we spoke with told us that they felt safe. Staff had received training in safeguarding and understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve. The service had policies and procedures in place for assessment of people under the Mental Capacity Act. On the day of the inspection all the people who lived at 16 Spring Mount were assessed as having capacity. People were cared for in a service that was safe, clean and hygienic. Risk assessments were in place in individual support plans in relation to activities of daily living. Medicines were stored and administered safely.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt that their needs were met. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that they understood people's care and support needs and they knew them well. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living in the home. People's health and care needs were assessed with them and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Staff spoke with pride about the progress that individual people had made whilst they had been living in the service. Relatives we spoke with were able to describe specific benefits to the health and wellbeing of their relatives and the impact that this had had on their daily life. One relative told us, "It's just amazing the achievements [they've] made, the person [they've] become."

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people. People told us they were able to do things at their own pace and were supported to be as independent as possible. People who used the service were invited to complete an annual survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised, these were addressed and discussed. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with their wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People were regularly involved in a range of activities inside and outside the service. The home supported people to take part in activities within the local community which included regular attendance at a local Arts and Crafts Centre run by the provider which provided a range of activities; people visited local places of interest and took part in sporting activities. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy and all five people we spoke with told us that they felt that they could talk with any of the staff if they had a concern or were worried about anything.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to ensure that people received their care in a joined up way. The service had a quality assurance system which included planned audits. People who lived in the service, staff and relatives were asked for their views. Any identified shortfalls were addressed promptly and as a result the service was constantly improving. Staff told us that they felt well supported by the manager. One relative told us, "[The manager] runs it really well and has gathered a good team around her. The quality of the team is very good."

We saw from people's care plans that people were supported to live as independently as possible. Care plans were personal and included essential risk assessments, which had been kept under review, to enable appropriate care and support to be given.

People who lived at the home were protected from risks of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. The staff we spoke with had received training in safeguarding adults.

Records we looked at also confirmed that there was sufficient staff to meet people's needs. People we spoke with confirmed that they were supported to attend various activities.

We saw that the provider had put systems in place to make sure people were safely cared for. This included policies and procedures, induction training for staff and quality monitoring systems.