Background to this inspection
Updated
28 March 2017
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 16 January 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the location was a small care home for younger adults who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.
The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Prior to the inspection we spoke with the local authority safeguarding and contracts teams who told us they had no concerns about the service. Before the inspection, the registered provider completed a provider information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
We spoke with the provider and two people who used the service, during the inspection. We also spoke with one relative.
Updated
28 March 2017
The inspection took place on the 16 January 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice of the inspection because both the provider and people who lived in the home were often out in the local community. We needed to be sure that they would be in the home at the time of the inspection.
The home was last inspected on 11 March 2015 when we found no breaches of legal requirements. We made a recommendation about the recording of best interests decisions in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Hilda House Care Home Adults LD provides care and support for up to three people. There were two people living at the service at the time of our inspection; both had lived in the service for many years. The provider was a husband and wife partnership, Mr Brian and Mrs Geraldine Cowan. We will refer to them as 'The provider' throughout this report.
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. Mrs Cowan was the registered manager. There were no additional staff employed at the service.
We found there were safe procedures for the management of medicines and the provider had received refresher training in this area. Medicines were stored safely and records were accurate and up to date.
The provider had received training in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and knew what to do in the event of concerns. A policy was in place and there were no issues of a safeguarding nature under investigation at the time of our inspection.
Risk assessments and checks on the safety of the premises and equipment were carried out. Individual risks to people were also assessed and mitigated. A record of accidents and incidents was kept.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). These safeguards aim to make sure that people are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The service was working within the principles of the MCA and applications had been made to deprive people of their liberty and subsequently authorised. Decisions taken in the best interests of people who lacked capacity were appropriately recorded.
The provider had undertaken regular training and development to ensure they remained up to date with current best practice.
People were supported with eating and drinking. Meals were prepared freshly on the premises and people had choices about what they would like to eat. People’s weights were recorded and monitored. They had access to a range of health professionals.
The premises were clean and tidy and generally well maintained. Some areas required redecoration and the provider told us this happened on a regular basis. People’s bedrooms were homely and personalised and reflected their choices.
We observed kind and caring interactions with people. Their dignity and independence was respected and promoted. Privacy and confidentiality of information was maintained.
Person centred care plans and personal profiles were in place outlining people’s goals and needs, and how these would be addressed. Communication was provided in pictorial easy read format when necessary.
People had access to a range of activities they enjoyed, tailored to their individual preferences. People were supported to maintain friendships in the local community.
A complaints procedure was in place although there had been no recent complaints received by the service.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service, including regular audits and checks.
We found that statutory notifications had not been made in line with legal requirements. We clarified that the provider fully understood their legal obligations in relation to these. Notifications are made by providers in line with their obligations under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. They are records of incidents that have occurred within the service or other matters that the provider is legally obliged to inform us of.
Feedback mechanisms were in place to obtain the views of people and their relatives about the quality of the service.