Archived: Longview House

Longview House provides accommodation and personal care to up to 19 people across 3 separate units. The upstairs unit offers full support to people living in the home. On the ground floor people were supported to gain and improve their life skills. The third unit supported up to 3 people to live semi-independently. People living at Longview House require support with needs associated with their mental health. At the time of our inspection, there were 15 people using the service.

Peoples experience of using the service and what we found

Risks to people's health, safety and well-being had been assessed and staff had access to information about how to support people safely. Staff knew people well and were able to identify concerns or changes to people's health and well-being.

Accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns were recorded and acted on appropriately to keep people safe and prevent incidents occurring in the future. Medicines were managed safely by staff who had received relevant training.

There were enough staff on duty to support people safely and people told us there were always staff around to support them when they needed it. Safe recruitment processes were followed to ensure new applicants were safe to work for the service.

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

Governance systems were used effectively to identify issues or concerns and drive necessary improvements to the quality and safety of the service provided.

People spoke positively about the staff team and the support they received, and staff told us they felt well-supported by the registered manager and described good staff moral and teamwork. People and staff were engaged with through regular meetings and discussions.

People were supported to access community support groups to help build essential skills to eventually live a more independent like and improve outcomes.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 28 July 2018).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

Longview House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Longview House accommodates 19 people across three separate units, each of which have separate facilities. The upstairs unit offers full support to people with their care. In addition, one the ground floor a number of people were supported to gain and improve their life skills. In the smaller unit, up to three people were supported to live semi-independently. At the time of this inspection 15 people were using the service.

This inspection is the first inspection under the registered providers' new name of Richmond Fellowship (New).

A registered manager was 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe living at the service. People were protected from abuse and the risk of abuse. Policies and procedures were in place to offer guidance and advise staff how to raise a safeguarding concern. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of how to safeguard people and all staff had received training in this area.

Systems were in place for the safe management of people’s medicines. Policies and procedures relating to the safe management, administration and recording of medicines were readily available to staff. Appropriate lockable facilities were available for the safe storage and administration of people’s medicines.

People using the service had different levels of support depending on their personal needs. For example, some people were supported with all of their needs while others were independent when managing their food shopping and medicines.

People were supported by a staff team that received regular up to date training and support for their role.

People told us that staff respected their privacy and dignity but were always available if they wanted to speak with them. People’s rights were maintained in relation being registered to vote in local and national elections.

People were encouraged to participate in the planning of their care and setting their own goals to achieve more independence. These goals included expanding their skills in relation to cooking and managing their own medicines.

People were encouraged to participate in physical activities within the local community to promote a healthy lifestyle. These activities included cycling and joining organised walks. Activities undertaken by people were planned and any identified risks were minimised wherever possible.

People’s rights were supported under the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act.

People were aware of how to raise a concern or complaint about the service. They felt confident that their concerns would be listened to and addressed by the staff team.

Regular checks took place to ensure that the building and people’s living environments were safe.

Clear recruitment procedures were in place to help ensure that only staff suitable for the role were employed.

People had several opportunities to discuss their views of the service they received. These included regular meetings with the key worker, meeting for people who used the service and an annual questionnaire asking for people’s views.

People had access to local advocacy service to assist in the making of decisions and lifestyle choices.