Campbell House

At the last inspection in July 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

People told us they had agreed the level of support they required to help them achieve their goals. Care records we viewed confirmed this. Staff were able to explain the support individuals required and the way in which they supported people who lived at the home.

Care records contained information regarding risks and guidance for staff on how risks were to be managed. Staff were knowledgeable of people’s needs and the support they required to maintain their safety. People who lived at Campbell House told us they felt safe.

Medicines were managed safely. Staff responsible for supporting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required.

We found people had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met. People told us they were supported to access further healthcare advice if this was appropriate and they were happy with the care at support provided at Campbell House.

We found people who received support were empowered to raise their views on the service. People who lived at Campbell House told us they were able to influence the service provided. People told us they were asked their views and these were responded to.

During the inspection we observed people accessing the kitchen to prepare their own meals if they wished to do so. Those that did not wish to do so were provided with a choice of meals.

The registered manager completed a series of checks to identify where improvements were required in the quality of the service provided. Staff told us they were informed of the outcomes of these.

Staff told us they were aware of the procedures to follow if they suspected someone was at risk of harm or abuse. Staff told us they would report any concerns to the registered manager or the Lancashire Safeguarding Authorities so people were protected.

There was a complaints procedure which was known to people who used the service. People told us they had no complaints, but they were confident the registered manager and registered provider would respond to any complaints made.

Recruitment checks were carried out to ensure suitable people were employed to work at the service. People spoke highly of the staff employed to support them. They told us they had no concerns with the staffing at the service and they considered staff to be helpful and caring.

People who lived at Campbell House told us they were encouraged to participate in activities that were important to them. People also said that if they did not wish to take part in activities, their wishes were respected.

The registered manager demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff were able to give examples of how they supported people to make

decisions. People are supported to have maximum choice and control in their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

We saw people were treated with respect and compassion. People told us they liked the staff who supported them and they felt valued and cared for.

At this inspection we found the service met all fundamental standards. Further information is in the detailed findings below.

During our inspection we looked at the way this person was being cared for and supported, the promotion of privacy and dignity, the safe management of medicines, the staffing arrangements in place and the effectiveness of quality monitoring systems. We spoke with the registered manager, the home owner, briefly with the person living at the home and the member of the support staff team on duty.

This helped to answer our five questions: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Is the service safe?

We saw that the person living at the home was treated with respect and dignity by the staff team. When speaking with the person we were told that they felt safe and secure living there. We observed an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment in the home was well maintained and safety checks had been carried out.

Policies and procedures were in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). We were told that the majority of staff had long experience of supporting people with a mental health illness and had received MCA training in previous employment. For staff that had not completed this important training, arrangements were to be made to enable them to do so. By following the guidance in the MCA and DOLS policy and by ensuring that relevant staff received appropriate training, helped to strengthen the protection of people living at the home.

Medication practices were robust. People assessed as competent were encouraged and enabled to maintain independence in the self-administration of their own prescribed medication. A regular, routine medication audit was in place. This helped to ensure that medication practices remained safe, by enabling any shortfall to be quickly identified and addressed.

It the service effective?

The person living at Campbell House told us that they were pleased with the level of care and support they were receiving, and that their needs were being well met. From our observations and through speaking with staff it was clear that there was a good understanding of this person's assessed needs and that personal preferences were accommodated. We were told, 'It's alright here, I get on well with the staff and I am happier than before'. This person also told us that they considered that their privacy and dignity and independence was being well supported by the staff team.

We saw that health and care needs had been assessed and the person had been involved, as far as they wished, in writing their plans of care. Risks had been assessed in conjunction with external mental health professionals, and outcomes incorporated into the care planning process. The premises were domestic in character and had been arranged to ensure that people could move around freely and safely.

Is the service caring?

We saw that the staff members on duty were kind, sensitive and accommodating. They were attentive to individual needs, preferences, wants and wishes and showed patience and encouragement when supporting the person living there. We observed that people were encouraged to do things at their own pace and at a time of their choice. It was clear that there was an inclusive and supportive culture that helped people to feel comfortable and valued.

The service had only accommodated the single service user for less than a month. Therefore it was too early to have had opportunity to formally evaluate people's satisfaction with the service provided. However we saw that the person accommodated was totally included in any decision making relevant to them. We saw that care planning had been revised and amended based on the feelings and wishes of the individual. The relationship with staff was positive and friendly.

Individual preferences, interests and needs had been recorded along with the actions required to ensure these were met. This helped to make sure that people were provided with an individualised service that met their specific requirements.

Is the service responsive?

The person spoken with said they were satisfied with the arrangements in place to support social activities and social interactions. These suited the person's current requirements. We observed that visitors were welcomed and able to see people in private and at a time of their choice.

The person spoke with was not really sure whether they had seen or had explained to them, the home's complaint procedure but was unconcerned about this. We were told that they would speak to a member of staff if they felt something was not right. The person gave an example of when changes had been made after they did speak up about something and was satisfied with the actions taken.

We observed the home's complaint procedure that gave sufficient information about how a complaint could be made, the process of investigation, the time scale for a response and the named person to address any complaint to. No complaints or concerns have been made in the short time the service had been operating.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with a range of health professionals to make sure that people received their care in a joined up way. Strong links had already been established with community mental health professionals to ensure the needs and requirements of the person remained focused and central to any decision making. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance systems that were in place. This helped to ensure that the quality of the service continually improved and that people received a consistent service at all times.

The member of staff spoken with told us that they were clear about their role and responsibility and that they felt well supported by the registered manager. We were also told that staff team worked well together for the benefit of the person living at the home.

A range of routine audits were in place including medication and fire safety. This helped to ensure that a consistent service was maintained that helped to protect people and keep them safe.