Archived: Heather House

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.