You are here

Durham and Darlington Crisis and Recovery House Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 June 2017

The inspection took place on the 26 April 2017. The inspection was unannounced and was carried out by one adult social care inspector and one inspector from the mental health hospitals team.

We last inspected the service on 27 and 28 February 2015 and rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the service remained good and met all the fundamental standards we inspected against.

Durham and Darlington Crisis Recovery House is an NHS service and provides short term support for people experiencing a crisis in their mental health. The local mental health crisis nursing team oversee all support provided and the service is led by a registered manager with support provided by support time recovery workers.

There was 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 Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were safeguarding procedures in place. Staff were knowledgeable about what action they should take if abuse was suspected. The local authority safeguarding team informed us that were no safeguarding concerns regarding the service.

The premises were clean. Checks and tests had been carried out to ensure that the premises were safe. People were supported to manage their own medicines and lockable facilities were in place in each room. The service had clear policies and procedures in place to ensure people were assessed and supported to do this safely.

We found that recruitment checks were carried out to ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staffing levels were provided to meet the needs of people using the service. Due to the nature of the service and fluctuating levels of people using the service, we saw that measures were in place to source additional staffing through the registered provider if needed. We observed staff carry out their duties in calm unhurried manner and people accessed the local community. Records confirmed that training was available to ensure staff were suitably skilled. Staff were supported though an appraisal and supervision system.

The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Part of the assessment criteria for this service was that people had capacity to make their own decisions and were free to leave the service at any time. Therefore the service did not have any people subject to DoLS authorisations.

People's nutritional needs were met and they were supported to access healthcare services when required.

We observed positive interactions between staff and people who lived at the service. Staff promoted people's privacy and dignity. There were systems in place to ensure people were involved in their care and support and treatment.

Care plans were in place which detailed the care and support to be provided for people. These were written and overseen by the crisis team of nurses and therapists based at West Park Hospital

People were supported to maintain their links with families and their community mental health support teams. We saw the service provided support for issues such as housing and staff were knowledgeable about signposting people to a range of services that they may nee

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 June 2017

The service remained safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 June 2017

The service remained effective.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 June 2017

The service was caring.

People told us their privacy and dignity were upheld.

We saw people were treated with respect and benefitted from positive relationships with the staff team.

People were supported to maintain their current relationships and were supported by staff in accessing the community.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 June 2017

The service remained responsive.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 June 2017

The service remained well-led.