29 December 2015
During a routine inspection
Parkhouse is a large spacious detached house situated near to the town centre of Burnley. The service provides personal care and accommodation for 12 people with a learning disability. At the time of our visit there was six people living at the home.
There was no registered manager in post. The provider had an agreement with the commission to keep this under review because changes within the company was being made. A nominated representative appointed by the provider was overseeing the management of the service. This will be reviewed in April 2016.
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.
People using this service and their representatives were involved in decisions about how their care and support would be provided. The registered provider and staff understood their responsibilities in promoting people's choice and decision-making under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the DoLS. We found the location to be meeting the requirements of DoLS.
Staff had training and guidance on protection matters and people using the service were given guidance on keeping safe.
People told us they were cared for very well and they felt safe. Staff treated them well and gave them all the support they needed. One person said “I’m happy here. This is my home.” People looked comfortable in staff presence and one relative told us, ”I would know straight away if there was a problem. Although she cannot tell me if something was wrong, her body language would. She is always happy to come back to the home when I have taken her out. That speaks volumes. The staff are really lovely with her. I’ve been very happy with her care.”
People told us they determined their own routines with staff support and staff support was flexible. This meant people did not have to conform to institutional routines and practices. We observed staff supporting people with respect whilst assisting them to maintain their independence.
People were cared for by staff that had been recruited safely and were both trained and receiving training to support them in their duties. People using the service were involved in recruiting staff and providing induction training when they started work. Staff training was thorough and most staff held a recognised qualification in care. We found there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to attend to people’s needs and keep them safe
Support with managing finances for people was strictly monitored by good accounting and regular auditing by the management team. This meant people could be confident they had some protection against financial abuse and this was closely monitored.
Individual risk assessments had been completed for all activities and were centred on the needs of the person. People’s rights to take risks was acknowledged and management strategies had been drawn up to guide staff and people using the service on how to manage identified risks.
People had their medicines when they needed it. Medicines were managed safely. We found accurate records and appropriate processes were in place for the ordering, receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines.
The home was warm, clean and hygienic. There were infection control policies and procedures in place and the service held a maximum five star rating award for food hygiene from Environmental Health.
People told us they were satisfied with their bedrooms and living arrangements and had their privacy respected by all staff.
Each person had an individual care plan. These were sufficiently detailed to ensure people’s care was personalised and placed them at the centre of their care. People’s care and support was kept under review, and people were given additional support when they required this.
Referrals had been made to the relevant health and social care professionals for advice and support when people’s needs had changed. This meant people received prompt, co-ordinated and effective care.
From our observations we found staff were respectful to people, attentive to their needs and treated people with kindness in their day to day care. Activities were personalised, varied and people had good opportunities for community involvement.
People were provided with a nutritionally balanced diet. All of the people we spoke with said that the food served in the home was very good. People chose their own menus.
People told us they were confident to raise any issue of concern with the provider and staff and that it would be taken seriously. They had weekly house meetings to discuss any matter that affected them.
People had been encouraged to express their views and opinions of the service through regular meetings, care reviews and during day to day discussions with staff and management. There were opportunities for people to give formal feedback about the service, the staff and their environment in quality assurance surveys. People with limited use of words were supported to communicate their wishes using visual reference in an accessible format, and where appropriate, their family had been involved. Recent surveys showed overall ‘excellent’ satisfaction with the service provided.
People said the management of the service was good. Staff and people using the service told us they had confidence in the registered provider and considered they were ‘listened to’. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and evidence the findings supported business planning and development.