Archived: Zion House

Updated 8 August 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 checked 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 11 July 2017 and was announced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector. Before the inspection we reviewed previous inspection reports and other information we held about the service including notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law.

We spoke with five of the seven people who lived at the service in order to find out their experience of the care and support they received. We spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager and four care staff.

We looked around the premises and observed how staff interacted with people during the inspection visit.

We also looked at two people’s care records, staff training records, recruitment records and other records associated with the management of the service including quality audits.

Prior to and following the inspection visit we spoke with two external professionals familiar with the service and two relatives.

Updated 8 August 2017

We inspected Zion House on 11 July 2017. This was an announced inspection. We told the provider 24 hours before our inspection visit that we would be coming. This was because we wanted to make sure people would be at home to speak with us.

The service was last inspected in July 2015. During that inspection visit we found the service was meeting the regulations.

Zion House provides care and accommodation for up to eight people who have a learning disability. When we visited the service seven people were living there.

The service is situated in a rural position but with transport available to attend community facilities and events. People at the service live together in a purpose built extension to the main house. It is divided into three separate units but all interconnecting. This gives people the opportunity to live communally but have their own space available to them.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 treated with kindness, compassion and respect. The staff at the service took time to speak with the people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking with staff on duty. Comments included; “I love it here. It’s my home” and “I like all the staff here; they’re all lovely and they look after me.”

Staff were competent in how they were providing support to people. They were very familiar with what support and care people needed. Staff supported people to make meaningful decisions about their lives and respected people’s decisions and wishes. People were supported to lead full and varied lives and staff supported them to engage in a wide variety of activities. Relatives told us, “[Relative] is very happy there and they do their best to make her happy. I would give it five stars if it was a hotel. I wouldn’t want [person’s name] to live anywhere else.”

The service was not fully meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards regarding making applications to the supervisory body for the use of certain restrictions in place for people. Following discussions with the provider immediate action was taken to rectify this. We have made a recommendation in the report regarding this.

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 support this practice.

People had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks, which they told us they enjoyed. People had been included in planning menus and their feedback about the meals in the home had been listened to and acted on. One person told us they enjoyed being involved in meal preparation and chose what they fancied each week for their meals. People dined together in each shared unit. It made dining a social experience by eating together and sharing conversation between themselves and staff. Comments included; “I have what I want. Tonight I’m having a baked potato and a chicken bake.”

Some people told us they were involved in their care planning and reviews. Relatives told us they were also involved in the care planning and review process. People had individual support plans, detailing the support they needed and how they wanted this to be provided. A professional who was familiar and had worked with the service told us, “In my experience the service are very supportive to the individual person’s needs. The work and engage very well with other professionals to offer flexibility in meeting people’s needs as they change over time.”

Zion House was well-led and people’s relatives told us they were kept informed about any changes in the service. They told us they felt their comments were listened to and acted upon. The service had an open and positive culture with a clear focus on enabling and supporting people to become more independent.