We carried out a review of the data available to us about RecoveryHub@NorthwestLeeds on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about RecoveryHub@NorthwestLeeds, you can give feedback on this service.
¿ The service identified a specific ward which was specifically used to support people who had been discharged from hospital with a positive test result for COVID- 19.
¿ There was clear signage throughout the home to identify the COVID-19 area and the Personal protective Equipment (PPE) required.
¿ We observed staff wearing appropriate PPE at the time of inspection and people told us this was the case when staff were supporting their needs. One person said,” Yes the staff are lovely here they all wear face masks.”
¿ Staff supported people in relation to their care and wellbeing. People were supported to contact family and friends by phone or video call. One person said, “I speak to [name of person] three times a day.”
¿ Staff adapted to each person’s individual need, for example one costumer was deaf and staff were wearing face shields so the person could lip read. Staff also used picture and flash cards. Access to a British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter was deemed essential for one person so these visits were encouraged and actioned by the service.
¿ The focus of the service is reablement. People were supported to be mobile and independent and encouraged to develop their skills to return to their home as soon as possible.
We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines as a designated care setting.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
RecoveryHub@Northwesteeds provides nursing and personal care for up to 40 people in order to maximise independence following illness or injury and facilitate early discharge from hospital. The service provides short-term placements with the aim of people returning to their own home. A multi-disciplinary team of health and social care professionals provide care and treatment to people. There were 34 people staying at the service at the time of inspection.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The service was highly effective in meeting people’s rehabilitation needs. They were very successful in supporting people to have a safe and effective discharge from hospital. People received intensive input from a skilled staff team and from on-site therapists. This included occupational therapists, physio therapists, nurses, a social worker and a pharmacist technician. This meant that a high number of people returned to their own home’s sooner than expected, and with a low rate of people being readmitted to hospital. The on-site multi-disciplinary team continued to offer rehabilitation support when people went home.
People were safe and protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk assessments helped protect the health and welfare of people in the home. Wherever possible people were supported to look after their own medicines. Staff were trained and had their competency regularly checked when they were required to give people their medicines. The home ensured good staffing levels to meet people’s needs. Infection control was well managed and the home was clean and free from hazards.
Promoting people’s independence was the key focus of the service. People were treated as individuals which helped protect their dignity. Equality and diversity was respected by a caring and compassionate staff team. Staff gave people their time and understood this was important in supporting people’s well-being and recovery.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were involved in decisions about their care. Communication was effective; staff and people were listened to. Processes were in place to manage and respond to complaints and concerns.
Strong, committed leadership put people at the centre of service provision. People, relatives and staff were positive about the management of the service and all felt valued and respected. Effective governance system were in place. The management team carried out a regular programme of audits to assess the safety and quality of the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 10 August 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Suffolk Court accommodates up to 40 elderly people. Seven beds are for permanent residents, 31 are allocated for transitional care; where people stayed at the service for a period of rehabilitation, and four for respite care.
People were supported by caring staff at all times. People who used the service described a highly positive experience at the service and described the staff and management team as caring and helpful. We saw clear evidence of a person centred approach towards people's individual rehabilitation and support. This enabled people to regain or retain their health and independence.
Staff treated people as individuals and showed they had developed positive relationships with people. Care plans were person centred and reflected people’s individual preferences. Staff said the care plans helped them to get to know people and remember everyone had past experiences and lives to be celebrated. Staff went above and beyond their required duties to ensure people had fulfilled lives. The service had a strong commitment to supporting people and their relatives, when end of life care was provided for people who used the service. Staff were trained to provide positive care for people nearing the end of their life to ensure a person's end of life was as peaceful as possible.
People remained safe at the service. People received their medicines as prescribed and safe systems were in place to manage people's medicines. Sufficient numbers of staff were available to meet people's support needs.Staff could describe how to keep people safe from abuse and neglect. People had suitable risk assessments and management plans in place. People were protected by the provider’s recruitment procedures. Audits of the premises helped ensure the premises were well maintained, clean and safe.
People continued to receive care and support from staff who were knowledgeable and competent in their role. Staff had received training to ensure their knowledge was up to date. Staff had regular supervision that helped identify training needs and improve the quality of care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People had access to a range of healthcare professionals in order to meet their health needs. The service recognised the importance of seeking timely advice from health professionals so that health and wellbeing was promoted and protected. People told us they were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs and there was always a good choice of food and drink. Where people were at risk of malnutrition, referrals had been made to the dietician for specialist advice.
People's needs were assessed before they stayed at the service and support was planned and delivered in response to their needs. People could choose from a wide range of activities and their decisions on whether to get involved in activities were respected. The provider had arrangements in place to respond appropriately to people's concerns and complaints.
Quality assurance systems in place were sufficiently robust to identify areas for improvement. The manager and staff were committed and enthusiastic to providing a person centred service for people. We observed during our visit, the management team were approachable and responsive to staff and people's needs.
We inspected the service on 08 July 2015. The visit was unannounced. Our last inspection took place on 21 August 2013 and there were no identified breaches of legal requirements.
Suffolk Court accommodates up to 40 elderly people, with physical disability and living with mild to moderate dementia. Out of the beds, 21 are for permanent residents, 15 are allocated for intermediate care and four for respite care.
Accommodation is in single rooms which all have en-suite facilities. Lounge and dining facilities are situated on both floors with the main large dining and lounge area being on the ground floor. There is level access to the enclosed gardens with some rooms overlooking this area.
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.
During our visit we saw people looked well cared for. We observed staff speaking in a caring and respectful manner to people who lived in the home. Staff demonstrated they knew people’s individual characters, likes and dislikes.
We found the service was meeting the legal requirements relating to Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People’s care records demonstrated that all relevant documentation was securely and clearly filed.
Staff we spoke with told us they were aware of their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding people who lived at the home. They were able to tell us about the symptoms of possible abuse taking place and how they would report this.
We saw the provider had a system in place for the purpose of assessing and monitoring the quality of the service. Records showed that the provider investigated and responded to people’s complaints, according to the provider’s complaints procedure.
The home met people’s nutritional needs and people reported they had a good choice of food.
People’s medicines were managed safely and people received appropriate healthcare support. We saw people were referred to relevant healthcare professionals in a timely manner.
We looked at four staff personnel files and saw the recruitment process in place ensured that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. There was an on-going training programme in place for staff to ensure they were kept up to date and aware of current good practice.
Infection control was managed throughout the home. We looked in people’s bedrooms and found people had personalised their rooms with ornaments and photographs.
People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. We observed staff supporting people who used the service and saw good care being provided. Staff knew the people they were supporting very well. People who used the service seemed comfortable with the members of staff who were supporting them. Staff told us people received very good care and support.
We observed there was a relaxed, unhurried atmosphere in the home. People received timely attention to their personal care needs.
We looked at all the safety checks and certificates the home had. We saw the home had all the necessary safety checks in place and the required certificates were in date.
The provider had an effective system to identify, monitor and manage risks to people who used or worked in the service.
People said, 'I'm very well looked after here. I like living here, I have no worries.' A relative said, 'I feel that my mother is safe here and they often stop and have a chat with her as they pass by.' Another relative said, 'My mum is better cared for than we could do at home.' A resident said, 'The staff are very friendly and helpful and I have no complaints.'
People who used the service told us that there were always plenty of staff on duty and they felt able to approach staff when they wanted to. Both relatives we spoke with told us that they felt that staff listened to them. They told us that they felt involved in decisions regarding their relatives care.
One person told us that,' They (staff) always treat me with great respect.'
We observed that people were treated respectfully and that staff were attentive to maintaining the privacy and dignity of those they cared for.
A relative that spoke to us said, "Staff always ring me if they think I need to know anything."
A visiting healthcare professional told us that they had no concerns about the care.
People told us the food was good, they receive a good service and they can make decisions about their care. They said they can choose what time to get up and go to bed, what to eat and what activities to get involved in.
Staff said they are confident that the management of the home would deal with safeguarding issues or concerns appropriately and systems are in place to make sure people are safe. They also told us they were aware of how to detect signs of abuse and were aware of external agencies who they could contact if they had any concerns.