Archived: Heather House

Updated 17 July 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 was planned to check 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.

The inspection site visit activity started on 25 April 2018 and ended on 26 April 2018. It included speaking to people who used the service, speaking to their relatives, carrying out observations and reviewing documentation associated with the regulated activity. This was the first comprehensive inspection of this service following a change in the registered provider.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

Prior to the inspection we checked the information we held about this location and the service provider, for example we looked at the inspection history, complaints and safeguarding notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to the Commission by law. We also contacted professionals involved in caring for people who used the service; including local authority commissioners.

Before we carried out the inspection the provider sent us a Provider Information Return (PIR). We used information the provider sent us in the PIR to inform our inspection. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During our inspection we spoke with five people who used the service and eight staff members including the manager, senior care and care staff. We looked at three people’s care records as well as medicine administration records, maintenance records and audits carried out by the service. We also carried out observations of people in the home and discussed our findings with the staff on duty and five relatives. We looked at three staff files. We looked around the home and its gardens to check people were safe living in the home. As a part of our inspection we also spoke with two external professionals.

Updated 17 July 2018

This inspection took place on 25 and 26 April 2018 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection following the registration of the new provider Papillon Care Ltd for this location. Although the registration of the provider had changed the service had continued to be provided at the same location. Staff and people who used the service had not changed.

Heather 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.

The home accommodates up to fourteen people in one adapted building and a separate bungalow to the rear of the building. At the time of our inspection there were nine people using the service.

The care service has been developed in line with the values that underpin the CQC guidance, '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.

CQC had received an application from the manager to register. We had accepted their application as being complete with no errors or omissions. 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 were supported to live at Heather House by a manager and staff who were committed to their roles and determined to continuously improve the lives of people who used the service. Staff enabled people to play an equal part in their home and community. Therefore, people displayed behaviour which showed they felt valued by those who provided their care.

Arrangements were in place for people to be very active participants in their home to influence how their care was provided and their home managed. Staff listened to people and had made changes as requested by people who used the service.

People’s independence was actively promoted. Regardless of the simplicity of tasks, staff recognised people’s abilities and involved and supported them to achieve independence.

Throughout our inspection staff consistently displayed caring values as described and expected by the provider. We found staff displayed constant kindness and patience. They promoted people’s dignity and privacy.

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.

The involvement of relatives in the service further demonstrated a culture of inclusion. Relatives confirmed to us their thoughts and wishes had been sought and acted upon.

People were given their medicines in a safe manner by staff who were trained and competent to do so. In keeping with a national initiative called STOMP-LD (Stopping over-medication of people with learning disabilities) staff had worked with people in a very positive way to reduce their need for mood stabilising medicines.

Vetting checks were carried out on staff before they began working in the home. Staff were supported to meet people’s needs through a programme of induction, training and supervision. This was monitored by the manager to ensure staff were up to date in their learning. Staff meetings were held to discuss issues and share information.

Regular checks were carried out in the home at differing intervals which made sure people were safe whilst living in the home and using the garden. Cleaning was carried out daily. The home was clean and well-presented.

At the time of our inspection there were enough staff on duty. The manager was alert to people’s changing needs and their wishes. The activities coordinator worked on an evening when people had requested some of their activities. This supported the staff on duty.

People were supported to carry out activities of their choice. Staff made suggestions to people about what they may wish to do and respected their decisions.

Advice and support had been obtained by staff about people’s eating and drinking needs. The Speech and Language Therapy Team had recommended some people in the home would benefit from soft diets. Advice was incorporated into people’s care plans.

Relatives told us they felt the communication with the staff was good. There were systems in place in the home which supported good communication between the staff and also between the staff, relatives and other professionals.

Care plans and risk assessments were personalised and up to date. These were regularly reviewed by staff on a monthly basis before the manager carried out care file audits. The care plans met the guidance requirements of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

Opportunities were available for people in an easy read format to make a complaint. Relatives had also been advised on how to make a complaint. No complaints had been made.

The manager had a strong personal commitment to making continuous improvements to people’s lives. They had introduced many changes into the service which had yet to become embedded.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality and effectiveness of the service including audits and surveys. This had resulted in actions taken to make improvements.