Adam House

Updated 11 December 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We visited Adam House on 10 October 2018 to carry out an unannounced comprehensive inspection. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the service, including notifications and previous inspection reports. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We contacted the local authority contract monitoring team, the local authority safeguarding team, commissioners of care and care coordinators.

Due to technical problems, the provider was not able to complete a Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service. We were unable to talk with people who used the service as they were away on holiday. We talked with one senior support worker, two support workers, a cleaner, an interim manager and the provider. Following our visit, we spoke with a care coordinator.

We looked at a sample of records, including one care plan and other related care documentation, training records, menus, complaints records, meeting records, policies, procedures and audits.

Updated 11 December 2018

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Adam House on 10 October 2018.

Adam House is a ‘care home’ which is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to six adults with mental ill health. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection. Nursing care was not provided.

The service is a large terraced house situated a short distance from Burnley town centre. The aim of the Adam House is to provide a ’Step Up’ service as a part of an individual care package and recovery pathway within the Healycare Ltd. At the time of our inspection one person was using the service.

At the time of the inspection the registered manager had taken planned leave of absence from the service. 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. In the absence of the registered manager the provider had made interim arrangements for the management of the service.

At our last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found some shortfalls in making sure the facilities and equipment is safe. We have therefore made a recommendation about the management of people’s safety and showing that all appropriate checks had been carried out.

The management and leadership arrangements needed some stability to support the day to day running of the service.

Staff were aware of the signs and indicators of abuse and they knew what to if they had any concerns. Staff had received training on supporting people safely and abuse and protection matters.

Risks to people's individual well-being and promoting independence were being assessed and managed.

Processes were in place to maintain hygiene standards and the areas we saw looked were clean.

Arrangements were in place to gather information on people’s needs, abilities and preferences before they used the service.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Policies and processes at the service supported this practice.

We found people were effectively supported with their healthcare needs and medical appointments. Changes in people’s health and well-being were monitored and responded to.

People were offered opportunities and encouragement with physical exercise.

There were processes in place to support people with managing their medicines. Staff responsible for supporting people with medicines had completed training. They had been assessed to make sure they were competent in this task.

People were actively involved with planning their own menus, shopping and cooking.

There were enough staff available to provide agreed care and support.

People had a detailed care plans, describing their individual needs and choices. This provided clear guidance for staff on how to provide support.

People’s privacy, individuality and dignity was respected. They were supported with their interests, including activities in the local community.

People had opportunities for skill development and confidence building.

There were processes in place for dealing with complaints. There was a formal procedure to manage, investigate and respond to people’s complaints and concerns.

People could also express concerns or dissatisfaction during their care reviews and during ‘house meetings.’

There were arrangements in place to train and support staff. Some staff were behind with refresher training, but this was being managed.

We found there was a lack of written information to help people make decisions and promote their rights.