You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 January 2020

Huish House provides accommodation with personal care for 12 people. The home specialises in providing a service to adults who have a learning disability, autism, sensory impairment or physical disability.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were not able to tell us about their experiences of life at the home, so we therefore used our observations of care and our discussions with staff and relatives to help form our judgements.

The service was going through a period of change. The last registered manager had left after managing the home for 12 years. Some people may have been affected by this change and were being supported. The deputy manager had now become the manager and had applied to register with us. They were keen to develop and improve the service and ensure the ethos was inclusive, open and honest.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 12 people. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However. the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People were safe. The provider had policies and procedures in place designed to protect people from the risk of suffering harm and abuse. Risk assessments were in place which identified possible risks to people and how to reduce them.

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home, to ensure their needs could be met. People’s changing needs were responded to. Suitable staffing numbers to meet people’s changing needs were a concern for relatives and staff. This issue was being acted upon by the manager.

People were supported by staff who were well trained to meet their individual needs. The service worked closely with people's families, advocates and other professionals to improve the care and support they provided.

Staff asked people for their consent before supporting them. People were supported by a staff team who respected their choices and decisions. Staff promoted people’s privacy, dignity and independence.

People, and those close to them, were involved in planning and reviewing their care which meant the care provided was specific to each individual. People's communication methods were identified within their care plans and understood by staff. People's, relative’s and advocate’s views were central to how the service was run.

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 part of their community. They chose a wide range of college courses, activities, trips and other social events.

The service was well managed with the provider’s support; a new management team was being developed. The current management team were open and honest. There were effective systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service. There was a strong commitment to improving 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 (and update)

The last rating for this service was Good (published April 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

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 1 January 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 January 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 January 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 January 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 January 2020

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.