Archived: Care Assist in Harrow (Park Drive)

Updated 27 February 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 26 January 2018 and was unannounced. One inspector carried out this inspection.

Before we visited the home we checked the information that we held about the home and the service provider including notifications about significant incidents affecting the safety and wellbeing of people who used the service. The provider also completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The PIR also provides data about the organisation and service.

During this inspection we observed how staff interacted with and supported people who lived in the home. We spoke with four people who lived in the home and one relative. We spoke with the registered manager, one care support staff with additional responsibilities and two care support staff.

We reviewed three care plans, three staff files, training records and records relating to the management of the service such as audits, policies and procedures.

Updated 27 February 2018

Care Assist in Harrow (Park Drive) is a care home that provides care and support to people with mental health needs. The home is registered to provide care for six people and at the time of the inspection six people were living at the home.

At the last inspection the service was rated Good with no breaches of regulation.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People we spoke with told us they had been treated with dignity and respect in the home. They said they felt safe in the home and in the presence of care support staff. On the day of the inspection, we observed there was a calm and homely atmosphere in the home.

Systems and processes were in place to help protect people from the risk of harm. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults. Comprehensive risk assessments were in place which clearly detailed potential risks to people and how to protect people from potential harm.

Systems were in place to ensure people received their medicines safely. Arrangements were in place for the recording of medicines received into the home and for their storage, administration and disposal. People told us they received their medicines on time and raised no concerns in respect of this.

People who lived in the home and staff told us there were sufficient numbers of staff to safely meet people’s needs.

Fire and emergency procedures were in place and there was evidence to confirm that necessary checks were carried out regularly.

On the day of the inspection, the home was clean and there were no unpleasant odours. A cleaning schedule was in place which allocated cleaning responsibilities to staff to ensure that the home was kept clean and regularly monitored.

People had an initial assessment of their needs with their families' involvement before moving into the home and care documentation demonstrated this. People's healthcare needs were closely monitored by care support staff and contained important information regarding medical conditions, behaviour and allergies.

Care support staff were provided with a range of role specific training and management provided regular support through supervisions and appraisals.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care support staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People were involved and encouraged to be responsible for the preparation of their meals.

People’s capacity to make decisions and communication preferences were clearly documented in their care support plans. The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. DoLS ensure that an individual being deprived of their liberty is monitored and the reasons why they are being restricted is regularly reviewed to make sure it is still in the person’s best interests. The registered manager confirmed that no one in the home was subject to any restriction of their liberty. On the day of the inspection we observed people went out when they wished to do so without any restrictions.

Care records were person-centred, detailed and specific to each person and their needs. Care preferences and cultural requirements were also noted.

Each person in the home had an individual varied activities programme which was devised with their input. People told us there were sufficient activities available for them and spoke positively about the activities they participated in. On the day of the inspection we noted that one person went out for the morning to a jewellery making course. Another person went out to get a haircut.

The home had a complaints policy in place and there were procedures for receiving, handling and responding to comments and complaints. A formal satisfaction survey was carried out in April 2017 and feedback received was positive and no concerns were raised.

People who lived in the home told us that management were approachable and they were satisfied with the management of the home. They said they had confidence in the registered manager. The home had a clear management structure in place. Staff were supported by management and were able to have open and transparent discussions. The quality of the service was regularly and consistently monitored and we saw evidence that regular audits and checks had been carried out by management.