Archived: Harvey Road (86)

We previously inspected the service on 15 April 2014. The service was meeting the requirements of the regulations at that time.

Harvey Road (86) is a care home for adults who have an acquired brain injury. Harvey Road (86) is registered to provide accommodation for three people. At the time of our inspection two people lived at Harvey Road (86).

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

The home is located in a residential street in Aylesbury and had a homely, warm and welcoming feel. People who lived there commented on how quiet and relaxed it was.

Providers are required by law to tell the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of certain events. Notifications should be received when a decision had been made about an application to deprive someone of their liberty (DoLS). We found decisions had been made about depriving people of their liberty which we had not been notified of. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.

People were protected from avoidable harm as staff had received training on how to recognise potential abuse. Staff knew when and how to raise a concern about people’s safety.

Staff received appropriate training to develop their skills, which promoted people’s dignity and independence.

People were supported to be engaged in work placements and personal hobbies and interests were encouraged.

People’s comments about the service included “I feel safe and comfortable” and “I feel involved in decisions about my care, I do get worried sometimes, but staff know this and help me.”

Regular meetings with staff and people who lived at the service ensured that feedback was used to drive improvements in the service.

People received personalised care, as care plans were written in a way that promoted individualised care. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes.

We considered the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used this information to answer the questions we always ask:

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

People who lived at Harvey Road were cared for safely. Staff had the knowledge and training they required to help them provide safe and appropriate care. Risks to people's health, safety and welfare were assessed. There were plans in place to eliminate or manager identified risks. Where people received support with their medication, this was done effectively and safely. People who were assessed as able to do so were supported to self-medicate which help them retain their independence.

Systems were in place to make sure managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted.. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required.

Is the service effective?

When we talked to one of the three people who used the service they were very positive about the support they received. We observed appropriate and relaxed interaction between staff and people who lived in Harvey Road. Staff had a good understanding of the assessed needs of people who lived in Harvey Road. Care plan documentation included full details of what those needs were and how they were to be met. Staff had the training and support they needed to effectively meet people's assessed needs.

Is the service caring?

Staff interaction we saw was respectful. The atmosphere within the home was calm and relaxed. People were fully involved with their care and support planning. Support was given with their agreement and reflected their individual choices and preferences. Whilst for some people Harvey Road had been their home for a number of years, the provider and staff were committed to helping people move to more independent settings in the community where that could be achieved appropriately and safely.

Is the service responsive?

We saw people's needs were initially assessed and then reviewed regularly. This was done with their full involvement. People were able to participate as far as they wanted to and were able, in all decisions about their care and support. Care support documentation was individual to the person concerned and recorded their preferences, individual goals, likes and dislikes. We saw evidence people's pattern of care had been adjusted to take account of changed circumstances or priorities for them. We found people were supported as much as they needed to enable them to access the local community and maintain contacts with family and friends.

Is the service well-led?

We found systems were in place to measure the quality of the service provided. Views of people who used the service and those responsible for their care were sought on a regular basis. People told us they would raise any concerns with the local manager and staff or with the provider. The provider had put in place a process which should effectively deal with any formal complaints made. There were regular, routine audits and checks carried out on all significant areas of the home's operation. Care staff were supported with training and supervision to help them provide effective and safe care and support.

Where people needed support, this was identified,documented and reviewed periodically with their involvement. There were risk assessments in place to ensure people and staff were safe and their health and well-being was protected.

People had access to community activities and were encouraged to build and maintain their independence. We found the service actively encouraged people to prepare themselves for a more independent lifestyle.

The service had the necessary policies, procedures and safeguards in place to ensure the health and safety of people who used it. Staff received training and support which enabled them to provide appropriate, individual support where necessary.

There was an effective recruitment and quality assurance process in place to protect the rights and interests of people who used the service. People were asked for their views and these were taken into account in the way the service was organised and run.

We were told there were a variety of activities undertaken by people living in Harvey Road. This included short college based courses, for example in small animal care, horticulture and a 'green fingers' gardening course. These courses were selected with the active involvement of the people concerned. We were told that one person had moved from one course to an alternative one, because it better met their specific needs at the time.

We were told that people also accessed local community leisure activities, for example the theatre, concerts or pubs. People said they felt supported and well cared for. One person told us about their plans for the future and said the staff at Harvey Road had been encouraging about them. People indicated they felt safe. They said they would talk to staff about any concerns they had.

There were safeguarding and whistle-blowing policies and procedures in place. These informed staff and others what to do if they needed to report concerns or abuse. We spoke with two staff members. They told us they worked as a team and supported one another. Staff told us they were able to discuss any problems or concerns with the service manager.