Archived: Newhaven Community Care - Phoenix House

Phoenix House is a residential care service registered to provide personal care for up to nine people with learning disabilities and on the autism spectrum. At the time of our visit there were nine people residing in the service.

The service has a registered manager. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Suitable arrangements were in place to ensure that people received appropriate care and support to meet their needs. Staff knew the needs of the people they supported and they were treated with respect and dignity. People’s healthcare needs were well managed and they had access to a range of healthcare professionals.

People’s needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff. Suitable arrangements were in place to ensure that staff had been recruited safely; they received opportunities for training and supervision.

People were safeguarded from harm; Staff had received training in Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and had knowledge of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The manager and staff had good knowledge of how to assess and identify people who meet the criteria for DOLS application and appropriate applications had been made to the Local Authority.

People had sufficient amounts to eat and drink to ensure that their dietary and nutritional needs were met.

People were provided with the opportunity to participate and engage in activities of their choice which met their needs. Relatives and people who used the service knew how to make a complaint and we felt reassured that all complaints would be dealt with and resolved efficiently and in a timely manner.

The service had a number of ways of gathering people’s views which included holding meetings with people, staff, and relatives. The manager carried out a number of quality monitoring audits to help ensure the service was running effectively and to help them make improvements.

We considered our inspection findings to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led? This is a summary of what we found;

Is the service safe?

When we arrived at the service a member of staff and one of the people using the service checked our identity and we were asked to sign in the visitor's book. This meant that the appropriate actions were taken to ensure that the people who used the service were protected from others who did not have the right to access their home.

People told us they were happy living in the service and that they would speak with the staff if they had concerns.

We found that staff who worked at the service were safely recruited and properly checked to ensure that they were safe to work with vulnerable people.

We found that appropriate arrangements were in place to ensure that people who used the service were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines. People had their medicines at the times they needed them, and in a safe way.

We saw that the staff were provided with training in safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse. Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS.) This meant that staff were provided with the information that they needed to ensure that people were safeguarded.

We saw records which showed that the health and safety in the service was regularly checked. This included regular fire safety checks which meant that people were protected in the event of a fire.

Is the service effective?

People were provided with a service that met their needs. People made comments such as, "I am happy," and, "I like it here, it has been good." People who were unable to verbally express their views were relaxed, interacted well with staff and were well supported.

People's care was supported through good assessments, care plans and risk assessments being in place. This ensured that staff understood people's needs and could care for them safely, effectively and consistently.

Staff who worked in the service were supported through on-going training and supervision to offer people care and support that meet their needs.

Is the service caring?

We saw that staff interacted with people living in the service in a caring, respectful and professional manner. Staff demonstrated an affection, warmth and compassion for the people they supported.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that staff consulted with people and offered them choices in their daily lives. People's choices were taken in to account and listened to.

We saw that staff were responsive to people's changing wishes and needs about where they went and what they did and supported them well.

People's care records showed that where concerns about their well-being had been identified the staff had taken appropriate action to ensure that people were provided with the support they needed. This included seeking support and guidance from other health care professionals.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a registered manager in post and two deputy managers had recently started to work at Phoenix House. This had improved and strengthened the leadership at the service. We saw that the new management team were making improvements and developing the service. The provider had systems in place to monitor and improve the service.

We spoke with one person who said, "The staff are all really nice; I get on well with all of them." We also spoke with a relative of one of the people, who was visiting the home. They were complimentary about the home and the progress their relative had made over the time they had lived there. All interactions between staff and people who lived at the home that we saw were appropriate, professional and friendly.

The accommodation was appropriately designed and adapted to meet the needs of the people living there and there was a plan for in place for improvements and renovations. The home was clean and was personalised to the people who lived there.

People's support plans and risk assessments were not up to date and in some cases not in place. Staff did not provide care to the people with reference to support plans. Therefore, care and treatment was not planned in a way that could ensure delivery of appropriate and safe care to the people who lived at the home.

People were not always protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have wholly appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. People were not always protected because staff recruitment systems were not wholly robust.

Due to the complex nature of the some of the people living here we only spoke to one person who lived here. They said they were, 'Happy here', they had 'A lovely room, the staff are kind and helped me to cook'.

The families were asked by the provider to complete the family quality assurance questionnaire. The following are two quotes from this questionnaire; 'I am very happy with the care, and know that if any issues did arise, I would be able to discuss them with the manager', 'We are very happy 'is content and comfortable in this home which is all we can ask for. The care is excellent'.

All care records were reviewed and were found to detail each person's needs, including their areas of interest, mobility, personal care, medication and risk assessments. Care needs were monitored daily by staff through daily handovers and the completion of night and day records.

The staff that are working here have previous experience of working with people with learning disability. They have all undergone a detailed induction process in order that people living in the home are not distressed by a change in their carers. The staff covers their own unexpected absences this also serves to minimise any potential disturbance.