Archived: Hempstead House

Not everyone using the service receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

This service also provides care and support to people living in a number of ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. The supported living schemes were located in Hertfordshire, London and Middlesex.

At the time of our inspection 53 people were being supported by the service.

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. 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 legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People using the service felt safe. There were systems in place to safeguard people from the risk of possible harm. Staff were aware of the risks to people’s health and well-being and ensured that risk management plans did not restrict the activities people engaged in. Personalised risk assessments were completed and updated regularly.

Accidents and incidents were reported and recorded promptly and action was taking to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. Any learning from any accidents or incidents was shared with staff.

People were supported with the prescribed medicines, where assessed as required. There were effective infection control procedures in place, with staff receiving training and being provided with personal protective equipment.

There were sufficient numbers of staff employed at the service who were effectively deployed to meet the needs of people in each scheme and the outreach service. The service had robust recruitment procedures in place.

Staff were knowledgeable and received training that provided them with the skills to meet people’s needs. Staff felt supported in their roles and received regular supervision and annual appraisals. These were consistently completed for all staff and were used to give feedback on performance and plan future personal professional development for staff at the service.

Staff were kind, helpful and maintained people’s dignity and independence throughout their care and support. Positive relationships existed between people and staff. Staff were knowledgeable about the people they were supporting and provided personalised care.

Assessment processes and care planning provided staff with the information they needed to support people effectively and meet their needs. People were involved in planning their care and deciding in which way their care was provided. Support plans were comprehensive and detailed people’s needs, preferences, background and history. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People and staff knew who to raise concerns to and information regarding the complaints procedure was available. The provider had a consistent process for receiving complaints, concerns and feedback.

Quality assurance processes were in place. Regular audits were undertaken to assess the quality of various areas of the service. Feedback on the service was encouraged and people were provided with frequent opportunities to express their views on the care and support they received.

There was an open culture. People and staff found the registered manager and senior staff supportive and approachable.

We saw care was planned in accordance with people's wishes and they were protected from harm. There were procedures in place to enable people to give valid consent and staff knew what to do when people were unable to give valid consent.

There were adequate numbers of appropriately skilled staff in place to provide safe and effective care.

Quality assurance processes were in place to monitor the effectiveness of the care and services provided. There was also a clear complaints procedure in place and people were provided with the information necessary to make a complaint.

Several relatives we spoke with said that they were very pleased with the care and service provided. A relative said that the person using the service was 'very happy and settled' since Hempstead House cared for them.

People and their relatives felt very involved in planning care packages. A relative said that the person using the service had two regular staff who took turns to help them. The relative added that the staff had been very good in encouraging the person to do things, and accompanied them to social activities.

We were told that the management staff had visited people in their own homes regularly to check if people were happy with the service, and to ensure that appropriate care was being given. The management visit was also an opportunity to check on and support the care staff.