Archived: Henshaws Society for Blind People - 1 The Avenue Knaresborough

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 21 and 28 September 2017.

There was a policy and procedure to guide staff in how to safeguard people from the risk of harm and abuse. Safe recruitment procedures were in place and staff were deployed in sufficient numbers to allow people to follow their individual interests, hobbies and pursuits. Staff received training, supervision and support to enable them to have the skills and confidence to communicate with people and provide effective care and support.

Risks were identified and action taken to reduce risks without impacting on their rights and freedoms to be independent.

People were supported to maintain their health and had access to a range of community health care professionals. People received their medicines as prescribed.

People could choose what they had to eat and drink and staff supported them to plan menus, to shop and prepare meals.

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

People had their needs assessed and plans of care were developed in order for them to receive individualised care. We found that staff knew people’s needs well and delivered focused, person centred care. Staff were caring and patient and we observed that people who used the service were comfortable and at ease with staff.

People were involved and encouraged to participate in a range of activities of their choosing. Staff promoted people’s independence throughout our visit. There had been no complaints since the last inspection. People told us they would feel confident raising any issues with the manager if needed.

There was a quality monitoring system that surveyed people’s views and audited aspects of the service to enable improvements to be made.

We saw the environment was warm, clean and tidy and was suitable for people’s current needs.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people including the manager and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People's care and support was reviewed with them and their families to check it remained effective and met their needs. Risk assessments were completed to support people to develop their skills and to make sure staff support and supervision was provided as needed.

Care records were accurate and reflected changes in people's needs. This made sure that people received the right care.

There was a stable staff team and some people had worked at the home for a long time. This meant that people received consistent support from staff members who knew them very well. Staff received suitable training and a manager was always available on call for further advice and support.

Effective management systems were in place to promote people's safety and welfare. Adaptations were made to take account of people's sight and hearing impairments such as strobe lighting used to alert people in case of a fire alarm.

The service had policies and procedures in relation to Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We found relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

Is the service effective?

People's health care needs including sensory care needs were kept under review.

We found that staff had genuine and meaningful interactions with the people they supported. During our visit we saw staff conversing with the people they supported and including them in conversations. This helped reduce social isolation and sensory deprivation that can be experienced by people living with dual sensory impairments.

People were involved in the development of their support plans and in reviews of their care. This meant that people's wishes and views were being taken into account.

People were encouraged and supported to follow their individual interests and pursuits. For example, one person had a workshop which they could use for developing their craft work whilst at home.

Is the service caring?

During our visit we observed good professional relationships were in place between staff and the people living at the home. We observed people approached staff confidently for assistance and that staff were quick to offer reassurance and support when needed. We spoke with one person who told us that 1 The Avenue Knaresborough was their relative's 'home' and she said he was settled and happy there.

Is the service responsive?

People received specialist support from the organisation's vision support team to assist with their sensory and mobility needs. People told us they met with staff and with other people to discuss what was important to them and their progress.

Records confirmed people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. People had access to activities that were important to them and were supported to maintain significant relationships.

Is the service well-led?

Effective management systems were in place to promote and safeguard people's safety and welfare.

The quality assurance system included audits and checks carried out by staff in the home and by other managers from within the organisation. Records showed that issues were identified and responded to in a timely way. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

During our inspection we looked at how people were respected and involved in the service. We looked at care records and found people had been involved in deciding what support would work for them and how that support would be delivered.

We saw from people's care plans that people were supported to live as independently as possible. The home had carried out an assessment of the needs of each person, and kept this under review, to enable appropriate care and support to be given.

People who lived at the home were protected from risks of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. The staff we spoke with had received training in safeguarding adults.

We reviewed the level of staffing for the home. People told us that there was always enough staff to support them with their care needs.

The agency had systems in place to make sure people were safely cared for. This included policies and procedures and quality monitoring systems.

We telephoned and spoke with relatives about the care people received at 1 The Avenue. Relatives described the home as being 'very good' one relative said 'I am very satisfied with the home. They look after my relative well and the staff are very good.' Another said 'They (staff) are wonderful. I am very, very happy with the care.'

We spoke with social care professionals. They made comments such as 'My client's needs are being met and they seem to be happy" and "They work very well with me. I have no concerns or complaints about the service."

We spoke with the Local Authority Contracts Officer who informed us that they did not have any concerns about this service.