Archived: Harper House - Stourbridge

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ Robust processes were in place for relatives and other people visiting the home. These included temperature checks, where required a COVID-19 test and the wearing of full Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

¿ Relatives could visit their family member on a pre-arranged basis. Visiting could take place in the dining room or a summerhouse in the garden.

¿ There were two communal rooms for the four people to spend their time. This helped to promote social distancing and reduce a risk of infection transmission within the home.

¿ Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) guidance would be followed when new people were admitted to the home.

¿ Stocks of PPE were available. Staff were wearing PPE in line with guidance.

¿ Staff were required to take a COVID-19 test three times a week and people every 28 days. People or staff who tested positive were required to self- isolate in line with current government guidance.

¿ The premises were clean and appropriate cleaning products were used.

¿ Staff received IPC training which included donning and doffing of PPE and PPE usage.

¿ The provider's IPC policy was available to staff and was up to date.

Harper House is a residential care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to five people with a learning disability and/or autistic spectrum disorder.

People’s experience of using this service:

• There was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the home. People were familiar and comfortable in staff presence and we heard animated conversation and laughter throughout our inspection.

• People had lived at the home a long time and relatives told us they were happy with the care and support their family member received.

• Information about people’s care needs and wishes were detailed in person centred support plans which were regularly reviewed and updated when there had been a change in people’s needs.

• 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 place supported this practice.

• The staff worked closely with other health professionals so people’s health and well-being was maintained.

• There were gaps in environmental risk assessments completed as the fire risk assessment had not been completed in line with required timeframes and by a competent person as dictated by legislation. This was a legitimate oversight and the provider did everything they could to remedy this whilst the inspection was ongoing and got a fire risk assessor to visit the home whilst we were on site.

• All other safety certificates and required risk assessments were in place.

• Systems continued to be maintained to help ensure the safety and protection of people who used the service. This included the safe management and administration of people’s medicines, effective recruitment and training processes.

• The home had consistent management and oversight by a registered manager who was an integral part of the care provided.

• Opportunities were provided for people who used the service, their relatives and staff to feedback their views and experiences. Relatives told us they had no cause to complain but indicated they would have no hesitation in raising a concerns with the registered manager and felt it would be sorted promptly.

• People engaged with the registered manager throughout the inspection and people’s relatives told us the registered manager was well known to them and their family member and they had confidence in their leadership.

• Relatives told us they would recommend the home to others looking for this type of care setting.

Rating at last inspection: Good and the last report was published 29 January 2016. For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating for the home.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor information and intelligence we receive about the home to ensure good quality care continues to be provided. We will return to re-inspect the home in line with our inspection timescales for Good services. However, if we receive any information of concern, we may inspect sooner.

People at the home were consulted and offered choices about the things they wanted to do. We saw care and support being given in ways that supported the independence of people and respected their privacy and dignity. A person we spoke with said, 'I really like it here.'

Staff we spoke with knew about the individual care needs of the people they were supporting and were able to describe in detail what those needs were. We witnessed care and support being delivered appropriately and people told us they received good care.

People were protected from abuse. Staff knew how to recognise potential or actual abuse and how and who to report it to.

Staff, were very enthusiastic about the work they did and of the care they provided. One of them said, 'I love working here.' Staff were well trained and supported by management in order to carry out their roles.

There were robust quality assurance processes and systems in place to monitor and improve the service. Regular meetings were held so that people could be consulted about the things they liked or disliked.

The staff on duty discussed the likes and dislikes of the people using the service and how they understand what they are communicating. The supervisor described a typical day with the duties which needed to be undertaken for the benefit of both the people living there and the home environment. The supervisor talked about her development since starting in her post and how she works with her staff team to ensure they are well trained and have the information they need to do their jobs. The other care worker on duty was relatively new in post. She discussed her induction and training, stating how much she enjoyed her new job.

The register manager discussed the development work which had been undertaken to ensure the welfare of the people was ensured. This was all demonstrated through recent examples.