Archived: Hazelwood House

Updated 16 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 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.

This inspection took place on 10 December 2018. The provider was given 48 hours' notice because the registered manager may have been out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be available. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection, we checked for any notifications made to us by the provider and the information we held on our database about the service and provider. Statutory notifications are pieces of information about important events which took place at the service, such as safeguarding incidents, which the provider is required to send to us by law. We reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR). The PIR provides key information about the service, what the service does well and the improvements the provider plans to make.

At the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, who was called the service manager by this provider. We will use the term registered manager and deputy manager throughout this report when referring to the service manager and deputy manager. We also spoke with three members of support staff and three people who lived at the service.

We looked at two people’s care records and risk assessments. Only one staff member had been recruited within the last 12 months so we looked at their recruitment record. We looked at audits carried out by the service; training and supervision records. We observed interactions between staff and people who used the service.

Following the inspection, we spoke with another person who lived at the service and we received feedback from five health and social care professionals that worked with the provider.

Updated 16 February 2019

This inspection took place on 10 December 2018 and was announced. At our last inspection on 4 February 2016 the service was found to be good.

Hazelwood House provides supported living to five adults with complex mental health needs so that they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living. People have assured short-hold tenancy agreements and their own en-suite rooms within the house.

The supported living service had a registered manager. 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.

The service was outstanding in the way it was run.

There was a clear vision about the direction and culture of the service, which promoted an ethos of involvement and creative ideas to ensure people had a full and satisfying life. The provider and local management team demonstrated these values in their actions through their work with people who lived at the service and staff. Innovative solutions to support people included employing them as peer support workers and working with other organisations and stakeholders to enable people to move on from high support accommodation. In this way the service was exceptional, distinctive and people were at the heart of the service.

People felt safe at the service and told us they enjoyed living there. They told us staff provided them with good support, in a way and at a time that they wanted and that they were treated with dignity and respect.

People were supported to be as independent as possible and this included taking their medicines themselves. For those who required support, medicines were administered safely and on time.

Risk assessments were in place and people had developed their own relapse prevention plans which outlined what their symptoms of ill health looked like and how they wanted to be supported in times of a mental or physical health crisis. Care plans were up to date, comprehensive, holistic and person centred.

People were supported to pursue activities of their choice and attend college courses. The provider also facilitated people going on holiday abroad by assisting them to get the relevant documentation to travel and by arranging staff to accompany them.

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. There was a strong focus of person centred care within the service, which staff followed in practice to ensure people led a full and varied life. This meant people experienced an improved quality of life because they were supported to explore new opportunities and were proud of their achievements.

Staff recruitment was safe. Staff understood how to safeguard people and knew what to do if they had any concerns. Staff had completed training in key areas and annual refresher training took place. Regular supervision and appraisal helped them identify areas for learning and development and team meetings were used to share best practice as well as a source of learning across the staff team.

Staff told us they enjoyed working for the provider and health professionals told us there was continuity of trained, skilled staff who were able to form therapeutic relationships with people. Health professionals told us the management team and provider worked in collaboration with them to maximise and improve people’s health and well-being.

There were quality systems in place to ensure service provision was of good quality. People living at the service and other stakeholders praised the local management team and the provider for being available and responsive to their needs. The provider, with the support of the local management team, were developing innovative schemes to support people to move to accommodation with less support and supporting people into work and training as part of their rehabilitation. The service employed people with personal experience of mental health needs as part of a peer support programme.

The provider had a complaints system in place and we could see the service responded to complaints within the timeframe set out by the provider. We could see the service learnt from accidents and incidents.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.