17 July 2014
During a routine inspection
Is the service safe?
We saw that people were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. The members of staff spoken with understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. Members of staff had received training about the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
We saw that the home was clean, tidy and free from offensive odours. Cleaning schedules were in place for all areas of the home including the kitchen to ensure that a high standard of cleanliness was maintained. There have been no recent outbreaks of infection at the home.
Is the service effective?
People's personal and health care needs and abilities were assessed with them and their relatives or representatives and they were involved in writing their care plans. Specialist dietary needs had been identified in care plans where required. We saw that people's care plans were reviewed before each period of respite care.
People new to the service were given a welcome pack which provided detailed information about the home and the support people could expect to receive from members of staff.
Discussion with care workers and examination of records confirmed that a rolling programme of training was in place so that all members of staff were kept up to date with current practice.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that members of staff spoke to people in a courteous and friendly manner.
People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. One person told us they enjoyed staying at the home.
People who used the service and their relatives were given the opportunity to regularly complete satisfaction questionnaires. The most recent surveys completed in June 2014 contained positive comments and demonstrated that people's relatives were satisfied with the care provided.
Is the service responsive?
People's independence was promoted and they were encouraged to pursue their own interests and hobbies. The person we spoke with told us they enjoyed baking and drawing. People were also taken out for walks and to visit amenities in the local community.
People who used the service were asked to complete a feedback sheet after each period of respite care. The completed ones we saw indicated that people had enjoyed staying at the home.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. We saw that there was a system for sharing essential information for example if the person required admission to hospital in an emergency.
There were systems in place for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided. We saw that audits completed regularly by the manager covered all aspects of the service provided.
Discussion with members of staff confirmed that they had received appropriate training and understood their roles and responsibilities. This helped to ensure that people who used the service received the care and support they needed. Members of staff told us the manager was approachable and supportive.
We understand from information supplied to us during the inspection that the ownership of this service has changed and Rochdale Council is no longer responsible for the service provided at Harelands House. Moreover, the Council has not formally informed the Commission of this change as required by the Health and Social Care Act 2008.