Archived: Honeywood

Honeywood offers a supported living service for adults with learning disabilities, physical disabilities, communication and sensory impairments and complex healthcare needs. At the time of our inspection, there were six people living in the service. The service is located in Grays, Essex and purpose built on one floor. Each person has a single room with en-suite , kitchen, dining room and lounge. There is a rear enclosed garden at the back of the bungalow with level access. There is parking available at the service as well as on street parking.

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.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Requires improvement in Safe, Effective and Well-Led. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made in all domains.

The service was safe. The provider’s recruitment processes ensured that appropriate checks were carried out before staff commenced employment. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet the needs of people and keep them safe from potential harm or abuse. People’s health and wellbeing needs were assessed and reviewed to minimise risk to health. The service had a good management and monitoring structure in place for medication.

The service was effective. People were cared for and supported by staff who had received training to meet their needs. The registered manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were supported to eat and drink enough as to ensure they maintained a balanced diet and referrals to health and social care services were made when required.

The service was caring. Staff cared for people in an empathetic and kind manner. Staff had a good understanding of people’s preferences. Staff always worked hard to promote people’s independence through encouraging and supporting people to make informed decisions.

The service was responsive. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis and when there was a change in care needs. People were supported to follow their interests and participate in social activities. The service responded to complaints received in a timely manner.

The service was Well Led. The service had systems in place to monitor and provide good care and these were reviewed on a regular basis. The registered manager told us that current systems and processes where being updated and improved.

Honeywood offers a supported living service for adults with learning disabilities, physical disabilities, communication and sensory impairments and complex healthcare needs.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. They had been in post since April 2016. 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. Following our inspection the provider confirmed to us that the registered manager had left the service’s employment on 6 February 2017. In the interim, the service was being managed by the manager from a ‘sister home’.

Quality assurance checks and audits carried out by the registered manager were not as robust as they should be. In August 2016 the Local Authority visited the service and had informed the provider of areas requiring further improvement. We also identified issues during our inspection that the provider had previously recognised but had failed to demonstrate the actions taken. Therefore, arrangements to monitor actions and address the issues raised were ineffective.

Although the provider confirmed after our inspection that no one living at the service was at high risk of choking and/or eating inedible objects at the time of our visit, on the balance of risk documentation was in place for one person to check that inedible objects were not within reach. There were some gaps in these records and it was only after prompting that staff clearly explained what the risks were and how they would safeguard the person if required.

Suitable arrangements were needed to ensure that staff received regular formal supervision and an annual appraisal of their overall performance. Improvements were required to ensure that where subjects and topics were raised by staff, this was followed up and there was a clear audit trail to demonstrate actions taken. Furthermore, it was difficult to decipher and determine if staff employed at the service had up-to-date training to meet the needs of the people they supported or if they had received a robust induction.

Minor improvements were required to ensure that there was a clear audit trail to evidence medication administered to people using the service. Improvements were also required to ensure robust recruitment procedures were in place for staff.

Staff had a good understanding and knowledge of safeguarding procedures and were clear about the actions they would take to protect the people they supported.

Care plans were detailed and provided an accurate description of people’s care and support needs. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were appropriately assessed, managed and revised. Appropriate assessments had been carried out where people living at the service were not able to make decisions for themselves and to help ensure their rights were protected with the exception of lap belts.

People were supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. The dining experience was positive. People’s healthcare needs were supported and people had access to a range of healthcare services and professionals as required.

People were treated with kindness and respected by staff. Staff understood people’s care and support needs and provided care and support accordingly. Staff had a good relationship with the people they supported.

There was an effective system in place to respond to comments and complaints.

We found that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Staff we spoke with had a good knowledge and understanding of people's support and communication needs.

We saw evidence that staff had completed appropriate training and had good knowledge of safeguarding. The provider had policies and procedures in place and staff had a good understanding of these. This showed us people who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

We saw from staff records that when new staff started work they were supported to go through a robust induction process to equip them for their role and provide them with knowledge, skills and orientation to the service. The induction is a twelve week programme which includes training on safeguarding, communication, challenging behaviour and movement and handling.

We saw people were given support by the provider to make a comment or complaint where they needed assistance. We saw policy and procedures for complaints these had been reviewed in a timely manner.