You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 July 2018

This inspection took place on the 11 and 14 June 2018 and the first day was unannounced.

Longview House 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.

Longview House accommodates 19 people across three separate units, each of which have separate facilities. The upstairs unit offers full support to people with their care. In addition, one the ground floor a number of people were supported to gain and improve their life skills. In the smaller unit, up to three people were supported to live semi-independently. At the time of this inspection 15 people were using the service.

This inspection is the first inspection under the registered providers' new name of Richmond Fellowship (New).

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 told us they felt safe living at the service. People were protected from abuse and the risk of abuse. Policies and procedures were in place to offer guidance and advise staff how to raise a safeguarding concern. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of how to safeguard people and all staff had received training in this area.

Systems were in place for the safe management of people’s medicines. Policies and procedures relating to the safe management, administration and recording of medicines were readily available to staff. Appropriate lockable facilities were available for the safe storage and administration of people’s medicines.

People using the service had different levels of support depending on their personal needs. For example, some people were supported with all of their needs while others were independent when managing their food shopping and medicines.

People were supported by a staff team that received regular up to date training and support for their role.

People told us that staff respected their privacy and dignity but were always available if they wanted to speak with them. People’s rights were maintained in relation being registered to vote in local and national elections.

People were encouraged to participate in the planning of their care and setting their own goals to achieve more independence. These goals included expanding their skills in relation to cooking and managing their own medicines.

People were encouraged to participate in physical activities within the local community to promote a healthy lifestyle. These activities included cycling and joining organised walks. Activities undertaken by people were planned and any identified risks were minimised wherever possible.

People’s rights were supported under the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act.

People were aware of how to raise a concern or complaint about the service. They felt confident that their concerns would be listened to and addressed by the staff team.

Regular checks took place to ensure that the building and people’s living environments were safe.

Clear recruitment procedures were in place to help ensure that only staff suitable for the role were employed.

People had several opportunities to discuss their views of the service they received. These included regular meetings with the key worker, meeting for people who used the service and an annual questionnaire asking for people’s views.

People had access to local advocacy service to assist in the making of decisions and lifestyle choices.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was safe.

People felt safe living at the service.

Procedures were in place to help ensure that risks to people were minimised.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place.

Procedures were in place for the safe management of people’s medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had received training for their role.

People participated in menu planning or purchased their own foods independently.

People told us that they were supported by staff to keep healthy.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with respect and their dignity was maintained.

Staff had a good knowledge of people’s needs and positive working relationships had been formed.

People had access to local advocacy services and support.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was responsive.

People needs and wishes were assessed, planned for and reviewed on a regular basis.

Physical activities were planned to help people maintain good health.

A complaints procedure was in place and people were confident that they would be listened to if they had a concern.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was well-led.

A registered manager was in post.

Systems were in place to ensure that people and their living environment were safe.

People were involved in the planning and development of the service.

People’s views were sought by the registered provider.