Archived: Henshaws Society for Blind People - 8 Spring Mount Harrogate

Henshaws Society for Blind People – 8 Spring Mount Harrogate 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. Up to six people can be accommodated at the service. Six people lived there when we inspected. All of the people who lived in the service had a sensory impairment and/ or a learning disability and/or autism spectrum disorder.

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 a learning disability and/or autism using the service can live as ordinary life as any citizen.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection, we found the service remained Good. However we saw improvements had been made and the service was now outstanding in the responsive are.

There was a manager in post who had registered with CQC.

Systems in place minimised the risk of harm to people. These included effective risk assessment of people’s needs, management of medicines, safe recruitment and effective management of accidents and incidents. The environment was well maintained and the provider had ensured all appropriate safety checks had been made.

We made a recommendation that the provider use the theory of Positive Behavioural Support (PBS) to design a care plan format which will provide staff with the information they need to intervene proactively where people need support. PBS is a method of learning about a person and why they may become anxious or distressed. Once staff understand why, they can work to remove triggers and/or support people better to prevent anxiety.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff received appropriate levels of training and support to enable them to carry out their role to a high standard. People benefited from staff having exceptional skills around understanding each person’s needs and aspirations. This included an excellent understanding of sensory impairment and how to use assistive technology to support people to be as independent as possible in all areas of their life, particularly through positive communication. Information was available in each person’s preferred format including policies and procedures such as complaints.

This meant people had feelings of wellbeing and a sense of being valued and included. People were supported to design their own care and make their own choices. They were treated with dignity and respect at all times.

The staff team were supported by an experienced registered manager who worked alongside the team and people who lived at the service, to ensure people received a quality and safe service. Quality assurance systems were effective.

The person centred care people received meant they were supported to achieve their chosen goals, maintain good health and improve their skills. Staff went the extra mile so people were able to live as full a life as possible.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

We observed people being treated with dignity and respect during our visit. People told us they knew who to speak to if they had any worries or concerns.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. Systems included people living in the service as far as practicable. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The service had policies and procedures in relation to Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We found relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

We found that staff had involved other health and social care professionals to make sure people received the right care. This had included following multi-agency procedures about safeguarding concerns. However, we have asked the provider to note that CQC also need advising of certain events affecting people's welfare.

People were supported to increase their choices and independence, and develop their independent living skills. Greater emphasis needed to be given to record keeping to ensure that monetary expenditure can be reconciled and verified properly.

Systems were in place to make sure that the service was well maintained and equipment was serviced regularly.

Is the service effective?

People's health care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in developing their support plans. People told us they were included in any decisions about how their care and support was provided. For example, people were involved in planning what food was provided.

Staff had received training to meet the needs of people they supported. This helped ensure a staff team with the right skills, knowledge and experience to meet people's care needs.

Is the service caring?

There was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere in the home throughout our visit. People were positive about the care they received. Comments included 'Staff help me,' and 'They (the staff) are good to us.'

Is the service responsive?

People received specialist support from the organisation's vision support team to assist with their sensory and mobility needs. Suitable aids and equipment were provided to promote and maintain people's skills and independence.

Records confirmed people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

People had access to activities that were important to them and were supported to maintain significant relationships.

Is the service well-led?

Effective management systems were in place to promote and people's safety and welfare.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. The service had a quality assurance system. This helped to ensure people received a good quality service.

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 confirmed that there was sufficient staff to meet people's needs. People we spoke with confirmed that they were supported to attend various activities. One person said 'There always enough staff.'

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.