You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 October 2018

The inspection of Heathcotes Alverthorpe took place on 17 and 18 September 2018 and was announced on both days. This was the first inspection for this service.

Heathcotes Alverthorpe 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. Heathcotes Alverthorpe accommodates eight people in one adapted building and the home was full during our inspection.

The care 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.

There was a registered manager in post and they were available both days of the inspection. 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 safe as the staff team knew them well, and had detailed, person-centred records to support them. Staff knew how to recognise and respond to any safeguarding concerns, and any learning from such incidents was shared with staff. Risks were managed through positive behaviour support strategies and staff were confident in using Non-Abusive Psychological and Physical Interventions (NAPPI) if needed.

Staffing levels ensured people had access to a variety of person-specific activities each day and medicines management was safe. Staff displayed a sound understanding and demonstrated effective infection control practice.

The registered manager was aware of current procedures and guidance for best practice, and this was evident in the policies in use in the home. Staff had access to frequent supervision and training, and encouraged to progress in their careers.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were managed well, and people at particular risk showed signs of improvement due to staff attentiveness and response. The registered manager accessed appropriate external support as required, including additional training if needed such as with communication strategies.

Staff spoke highly of the teamwork and how supportive colleagues were of each other. They ensured people were treated with kindness and compassion, and provided significant emotional support when people became anxious. Privacy and dignity was promoted at all times.

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.

There was evidence in care records of people’s involvement, or their appointed representative, to ensure their needs were met in line with their preferences and wishes. Activities undertaken endorsed this, as people were supported to visit places they liked and take part in events such as swimming or walks.

Although no specific complaints had been received we found a clear policy, accessible through pictures and people felt able to raise any issues. There was confidence these would be addressed. We saw evidence of many compliments about the home in the recent surveys undertaken and completed by people, relatives and professionals.

It was evident the registered manager was striving for the best outcomes for people living in the service through ensuring all staff were suitably knowledgeable and utilising the partnerships they had built up with external services. The quality assurance systems were robust and showed how the service continually sought to improve.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 October 2018

The service was safe.

People were safe as staff were attentive to their needs and knew how to respond to any concerns.

Risks were pro-actively managed, with detailed guidance and staffing levels meant people�s needs were met promptly.

Medication and infection control practice was safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 October 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received regular supervision and training, and were knowledgeable about people�s needs. The registered manager and staff understood and complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We saw staff worked well as a team and supported people well with nutrition and hydration.

People accessed extra health and social care support as needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 October 2018

The service was caring.

Staff displayed kindness and empathy to all people in the home, and knew people well.

Records showed all relevant people were involved in supporting people in the manner they wished to be supported.

Privacy and dignity was promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 October 2018

The service was responsive.

People enjoyed numerous activities and were supported to engage in as much as they wished.

Care records were comprehensive and reflected people�s needs, and were regularly reviewed.

The service had not received any complaints but had a procedure in place, and had received many compliments.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 October 2018

The service was well led.

The home was lively and friendly, with engaging staff.

High quality care delivery was evident with dedicated staff and a registered manager, which was monitored through a sound quality assurance process.

There was evidence of strong partnership working to ensure the best outcomes for people.