Background to this inspection
Updated
14 June 2019
The inspection:
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team:
This inspection was undertaken by one inspector.
Service and service type:
Safeharbour (254 Hagley Road) is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation, nursing or personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The service had a manager registered with CQC. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection:
The inspection was unannounced.
What we did:
We reviewed information we had received about the service since they were registered with us. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as allegations of abuse and we sought feedback from the local authority and other professionals who work with the service. We assessed the 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. We used all this information to plan our inspection.
We contacted six relatives by telephone and spoke with five to gather their views on the service being delivered for their family members. We also spoke with the registered manager, two team leaders and four care staff. We used this information to form part of our judgement.
We looked at three people’s care records to see how their care and treatment was planned and delivered. Other records looked at included three recruitment files to check suitable staff members were recruited and received appropriate training. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service along with a selection of the provider’s policies and procedures, to ensure people received a good quality service. Details are in the ‘Key Questions’ below.
Updated
14 June 2019
About the service: Safeharbour (254 Hagley Road) is a residential care home that was providing personal care to six people that live with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection six people lived at the home.
People’s experience of using this service:
The service had been developed in line with the values that underpin the ‘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 life as any citizen.
The service had required improvement at the last inspection with medicines management. We found the provider had introduced a new electronic system that had improved how medicines were monitored and audited. This meant people received their medicines on time and in a safe way.
Relatives told us they felt the service was safe. We found the service delivered safe care, risks to people’s health and safety were continually assessed to ensure both the home environment and outings in the community were safe. Staff understood how to protect people from risk of harm. There were enough numbers of safely recruited staff. Staff had completed induction training that included safeguarding, medication, health and safety and moving and handling. Staff had access to equipment and clothing that protected people from cross infection.
The service delivered effective care because staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s care and health needs. People were supported to access healthcare services to ensure they received ongoing healthcare support. People, as much as practicably possible, had choice and control of their lives and staff were aware of how to support them in the least restrictive way. The service has required improvement where best interest decisions had been taken. This had improved and we found people’s legal rights were protected and decisions, where appropriate, had been made in peoples’ best interests and recorded appropriately. People’s nutritional needs were met.
Staff were kind, caring and had built good relationships with the people receiving care and support. Staff prioritised people’s needs constantly. Staff encouraged people’s independence, where possible and protected their privacy and treated them with dignity.
People were supported by staff who knew their preferences. Any complaints made since the last inspection had been resolved. Relatives knew who to contact if they had any complaints. We found care was tailored to meet people’s varying needs. Activities were varied and person-centred.
The service was well-led. We received positive feedback from staff and the relatives of people living at the home on how the home had improved from the last inspection. Staff were knowledgeable about their roles and spoke passionately about the people they supported. There had been an improvement from the last inspection with the provider’s quality audits systems and notifications had been sent to us as legally required. Audits in place ensured the care provided was innovative and continually improving. Relatives and as much as possible people’s views were sought about the quality of the care being provided. Staff felt supported by the management team. Relatives and staff were happy with the way the service was being managed. The service worked well with partner organisations to ensure people’s needs were met.
Rating at last inspection:
Requires Improvement (published 09 May 2018).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk