You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 7 October 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Harrison Park on 7 October 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Harrison Park, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 6 November 2019

During a routine inspection

Harrison Park is an extra care housing facility, which has 65 individual flats in one large building. The company commissioned to provide domiciliary care calls to people within Harrison Park is Hales Group Limited. The service can provide care and support to people living with dementia, learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, mental health, older people, younger adults, people who misuse drugs and alcohol, people with physical disabilities and people with sensory impairment.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects where people receive personal care. This means tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection, 37 people were receiving personal care calls.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Since the last inspection, there had been improvements in medicines management, record keeping and quality monitoring. People had risk assessments and care plans which gave staff the information they needed to support people and keep them safe. Supplementary monitoring records such as food and fluid charts were well-maintained. People and their relatives were fully involved in developing and updating their planned care. People were safely supported with handling medicines; the number of medicine errors had significantly reduced.

The provider’s quality monitoring system had improved. Audits, surveys and meetings were completed, feedback was listened to and shortfalls addressed. People told us they were confident complaints would be listened to and resolved.

Staff knew how to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and poor practice and knew how to raise concerns. People told us they felt safe with staff and trusted them.

Staff were recruited safely. There were enough staff to complete the care calls. Staff had received appropriate training and support to enable them to carry out their role. People considered they received consistent care from a skilled staff group.

Care and support was tailored to each person's needs and preferences. People and their relatives were fully involved in developing and updating their planned care. We received positive feedback from people about the support provided to them. People had good relationships with staff and told us staff were kind and respectful.

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 who used the service were supported to maintain a healthy diet when this was part of their care plan. The registered manager had developed positive links with health care professionals which promoted people’s wellbeing.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating and update for this service was requires improvement (published 25 October 2018). At the time, there were concerns with safe administration of medicines, records and ensuring a good quality assurance system.

The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 24 July 2018

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 24 July 2018 and was announced. This was the first inspection since Harrison Park was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in July 2017. We gave the provider, Hales Group Limited, 17 hours’ notice of our inspection. This was because the location provided a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure the registered manager and staff would be available to support the inspection process.

Harrison Park provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. The CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

There are 65 individual flats in Harrison Park. Not everyone living there receives a regulated activity. The CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’, for example, help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection, 37 people were receiving the regulated activity of personal care from Hales Group Limited. Most were older people who had a range of needs, which included physical difficulties and those people who were living with dementia. Some people had communication needs and some had a learning disability.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

During this inspection, we identified shortfalls in relation to medicines management, gaps in recording and quality monitoring of the service. These issues were breaches of Regulation 12 (Safe handling of medicines) and Regulation 17 (Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We found people had not always received their medicines as prescribed. There had been a number of errors with medicines management and staff received additional training and competency checks, however, the errors had persisted. This meant people remained at risk of harm as the provider could not be assured people were receiving their medicines in line with the prescribing instructions. The provider was monitoring medicines management closely and there had been a reduction in errors.

The quality monitoring system and audits had identified the medicines errors but how this was managed could be improved to ensure improvements were sustained. There were some gaps in records such as medication administration records and food and fluid monitoring charts.

Staff received training in how to safeguard people from the risk of harm and abuse; they knew what action to take if they had concerns. People had risk assessments in place to guide staff in how to minimise risk without restricting people’s choices. Some of the risk assessments were very detailed, whilst others could include more information and guidance for care staff. The registered manager told us they would address this.

Staff supported people to maintain their health and nutritional needs. They contacted health professionals and emergency services when required and let relatives know to keep them informed. Health professionals said contact with them could, on some occasions, be timelier. This was mentioned to the registered manager to discuss with staff. Some people had support from staff to prepare meals and complete food shopping.

People told us