All inspections: Northmead House - Care Quality Commission

Northmead House provides a short stay respite service for adults with a learning disability. The home can accommodate up to ten people. Northmead House provides a homely environment and bedrooms are for single occupancy. The home is staffed 24 hours a day.

This inspection took place on 21 May 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

At the last inspection carried out on 6 November 2013 we did not identify any concerns with the care provided to people.

People had communication difficulties associated with their learning disability. Because of this we were only able to have very limited conversations with two people about their experiences. We therefore used our observations of care and our discussions with staff to help form our judgements.

There was 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 registered manager was not available for this inspection; however information sent to us prior to the inspection told us the registered manager had a clear vision for the service. This was also confirmed by the staff we spoke with.

The home was a safe place for people. They were able to take appropriate risks as part of their day to day lives. Staff understood people’s needs and provided the care and support they needed.

Some improvements were needed to ensure people’s legal rights were protected. Staff had a good understanding about the procedures to follow; however decisions about the use of bedrails and listening devices did not demonstrate discussions had taken place and their use had been agreed to be in the individuals’ best interests.

People’s healthcare needs were met and they received their medicines when they needed them.

People were cared for by staff who had been appropriately trained. Staff were positive about the training and support they received. The provider only employed staff who were suitable to work with vulnerable people. This helped to minimise risks to people who were staying at the home.

People, and those close to them, were involved in planning and reviewing their care and support. There was a close relationship and good communication with people’s relatives.

Routines in the home were flexible and were based around the needs and preferences of the people who lived there. People were able to plan their day with staff and they were supported to access a range of social and leisure activities in the home and local community.

There were systems in place to monitor health and safety and the quality of the service provided to people.

On entering Northmead House we found the atmosphere warm and welcoming. We observed people staying at the home and spoke with staff members. We noted and observed staffs understanding of the care and support needed. People who used the

service told us, through gestures, that they liked being at the home and that staff were nice. We saw that the rooms were tastefully decorated with pictures on the walls.

We looked at people's individual files which incorporated their personal history, likes and dislikes, support plans and risk assessments and found they encompassed the safety and well-being of people who use the service.

Staff told us that they knew how to raise a concern or complaint and felt confident in doing. They said if they had any issues or concerns they could "talk to the manager." There were policies and procedures in place providing guidance and all staff had received training which was identified on the training schedule.

People who used the service, their families or representatives were given the opportunity to provide feed-back through a customer satisfaction survey which gauged how they felt about the service they were receiving.

We were able to meet with two of the five people who used the service and a visitor. We spoke with the manager and three members of staff. People appeared very comfortable in the presence of staff and it was evident staff knew people well. Staff were observed being kind, caring and patient when they supported people.

Each person had a plan which described the care and support they required and how staff should provide it. Plans also included who the important people in their life were, how people communicated, daily routines, preferences and how they made decisions. This meant the staff who supported people could provide personalised care to each individual.

Procedures were in place which ensured that people received their medicines at the prescribed intervals by staff who had been appropriately trained. We found that medicines had been securely stored.

We looked at the personnel files for three members of staff. These showed that the home had followed robust recruitment procedures which meant that risks to people who used the service would be reduced.

The home benefited from a stable staff team with little staff turnover. This meant that people were supported by staff who knew them well.

The home had a complaints procedure which provided people who used the service and their representatives with clear information about how to raise any concerns and how their concerns would be managed.

People using the service appeared very comfortable in the presence of staff and it was evident that staff knew people well. They were skilled in recognising and responding to people's needs even though some people had limited verbal communication. Interactions were noted to be kind and respectful and the atmosphere in the home was relaxed and inclusive.

One person told us 'all the staff are very kind'. They said 'I choose what time to go to bed and when I get up', 'you get to decide about everything'.

People who were able to express a view told us that they felt 'safe and happy' at the home. They told us that the staff were 'very kind' and that they were never made to do anything they did not want to do.

One individual showed us a notice board which contained the photographs and names of the staff on duty. They said 'this is so that we know who will be here to look after us, I know them all'.

People told us that they were treated with respect. During our visit staff were observed knocking on people's bedroom doors before entering.

These older reports are from our old approaches to inspection, including those from before CQC was created.

Archived: Northmead House

All Inspections

21 May 2015

During a routine inspection

6 November 2013

During a routine inspection

20 November 2012

During a routine inspection

5 January 2012

During a routine inspection

Reports under our old system of regulation