You are here

HF Trust - Corunna Close Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 6 December 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 6 and 11 December 2017 and was unannounced. At our previous inspection on 23 November 2016 the service was rated as Good. At this inspection the service remained Good.

HF Trust – Corunna Close is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

HF Trust – Corunna Close accommodates up to five people in one adapted building and a one bedroom self-contained ‘annex’ that is adjacent to the bungalow. The service is located on the outskirts of St Neots. There was one person receiving care at the time of our inspection.

This service is for people living with Prader-Willi Syndrome (PWS). This is a condition where people have a chronic feeling of hunger that can lead to excessive eating and sometimes life threatening obesity.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At the time of this inspection a registered manager was 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.

People were given information in a format that they could understand about what keeping safe meant. Risks to people were identified and assessed. A robust process was in place to learn when things had not gone as planned and improvements had been made when incidents had occurred.

A sufficient number of safely recruited staff with the right skills were deployed in a way which maximised people’s independence. People’s medicines were managed and administered safely by staff whose competence had been assessed.

Systems were in place which helped ensure that any potential risk of infection was minimised. This was achieved through staff training, cleaning routines and adherence to food hygiene standards.

People were supported to attend their healthcare appointments by staff who were able to recognise if any external healthcare interventions were needed. People ate a balanced diet and they had the nutritional support they needed to maintain their health and wellbeing.

People’s preferences and needs were supported by staff who had been trained to have the right skills. This helped people achieve their potential. Adaptations were made to the home according to any person’s diverse needs.

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’s privacy and dignity was upheld by staff who knew what compassionate care was and what this meant to each person. People were listened to by staff who supported them to make decisions about their care. Staff knew the people they cared for well and how to enable people to live a meaningful life.

People were supported to live as independently as possible by staff who gave people every possible opportunity to fulfil their ambitions and build upon their strengths.

People’s concerns, suggestions and compliments were used to identify where improvements might be needed as well as what worked well. Systems were in place to involve people in discussions about any advanced decisions or end of life wishes.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities to notify the CQC about any serious incidents as well as displaying their previous inspection rating conspicuously. They had also fostere

Inspection carried out on 23 November 2016

During a routine inspection

HF Trust – Coruna Close provides accommodation and personal care for up to five people who have learning disabilities and or autistic spectrum disorder. This service is for people living with Prader-Willi Syndrome (PWS). This is a condition where people have a chronic feeling of hunger that can lead to excessive eating and sometimes life threatening obesity. The service is located in a bungalow in a residential area of Eaton Ford and includes a one bedroom self-contained ‘annex’ that is adjacent to the bungalow.

This short notice announced inspection took place on 23 November 2016. There were two people receiving care at that time. This was the first inspection since the location was added to provider’s registration in February 2016.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

Staff were only employed after the provider had carried out comprehensive and satisfactory pre-employment checks. Staff were well trained, and well supported, by the registered manager and provider organisation. There were enough skilled and knowledgeable staff to meet people’s assessed needs.

Systems were in place to ensure people’s safety was effectively managed. Staff were aware of the procedures for reporting concerns and of how to protect people from harm. People were supported to manage their prescribed medicines safely.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. We found that there were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making and applications had been made to the authorising agencies for people who needed these safeguards. People’s rights to make decisions about their care were respected. Where people did not have the mental capacity to make decisions, they had been supported in the decision making process.

The staff were knowledgeable of PWS and ensured that people were supported to self-manage the condition whenever possible. People were supported to eat a varied, balanced diet that promoted healthy eating.

People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Staff were polite caring and empathetic. They treated people with dignity and respect. People were involved in making decisions about their care.

People’s care records were detailed and provided staff with sufficient guidance to ensure consistent care and support was provided to each person. Changes to people’s care was kept under review to ensure the change was effective.

People were encouraged and supported to develop and maintain relationships with people that mattered to them. People were supported to access the community and take part in recreational and occupational pursuits.

People had access to information on how to make a complaint and were confident their concerns would be acted on.

The registered manager was supported by a staff team that included senior support workers and support workers. The service was well run and staff, including the registered manager, were approachable. People’s views were listened to and acted on. Concerns were thoroughly investigated and plans actioned to bring about improvement.

We saw there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. When areas for improvement were identified action was taken to address the shortfalls.