Archived: Hail - Burghley Road

Updated 21 February 2019

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 unannounced inspection took place on 8 January 2019 and was carried out by one inspector. Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This 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. We reviewed the completed PIR and other information we had about the provider, including notifications of any safeguarding or other incidents affecting the safety and well-being of people using the service.

We met and spoke with all three people who currently use the service. As some people at the home have different ways of communicating, it was not always possible to ask them direct questions about the service they received. We asked staff to help us obtain feedback from people as they understood people’s different methods of communication. We observed interactions between staff and people using the service as we wanted to see if the way that staff communicated and supported people had a positive effect on their well-being.

We spoke with six staff including the registered manager, the deputy manager and four care staff. We were sent further information after the inspection by the registered manager and the Director of Operations.

After the inspection we contacted two relatives to gain their views about the home. We also spoke with two social care professionals after the inspection.

We looked at all three people’s care plans and other documents relating to their care including risk assessments and healthcare documents. We looked at other records held by the service including health and safety documentation, quality audits and staff records.

Updated 21 February 2019

At our last comprehensive inspection in November 2017 the service was rated ‘Requires Improvement’. At that inspection we identified four breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These breaches were in relation to the need for consent, safe care and treatment, staff support and good governance.

At this inspection we found that the registered provider had addressed these breaches. At this inspection the service was rated ‘Good’.

Hail - Burghley Road is a ‘care home’ for people who have a learning disability. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home accommodates a maximum of four people in one terrace house. At the time of our inspection there were three people living at the home.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

The home had a relaxed atmosphere and people told us they were well treated by the staff and felt safe with them. We saw the way that staff interacted with people had a positive effect on their well-being.

Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from potential abuse, bullying or discrimination. Staff knew what to look out for that might indicate a person was being abused.

Risks had been identified, with the input from the person where possible and were recorded in people’s care plans. Ways to reduce these risks had been explored and were being followed appropriately.

There were systems in place to ensure medicines were handled and stored securely and administered to people safely and appropriately. Medicines were being audited regularly so any errors could be picked up quickly and action taken.

Staff were positive about working at the home and told us they appreciated the support and encouragement they received from the management.

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 the service supported this practice.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA 2005) and knew that they must offer as much choice to people as possible in making day to day decisions about their care.

People were included in making choices about what they wanted to eat and staff understood and followed people’s nutritional plans in respect of any cultural requirements or healthcare needs people required.

Both people who used the service and the staff who supported them had regular opportunities to comment on service provision and made suggestions regarding quality improvements. Staff told us that the management listened to them and acted on their suggestions and wishes.

All parts of the home, including the kitchen, were clean and no malodours were detected.

People had regular access to healthcare professionals such as doctors, dentists, chiropodists and opticians.

Staff treated people as unique individuals who had different likes, dislikes, needs and preferences. Staff and management made sure no one was disadvantaged because of their age, gender, sexual orientation, disability or culture. Staff understood the importance of upholding and respecting people’s diversity. Staff challenged discriminatory practice.

Everyone had an individual plan of care which was reviewed on a regular basis.

People were supported to raise any concerns or complaints and staff understood the different ways people expressed their views about the service and if they were happy with their care.

The management team worked in partnership with other organisations to support care provision, service development and joined-up care.