Archived: Harrison House

Updated 30 June 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.

The inspection took place on 25 May 2017 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has expertise in a particular area, in this case, care of older people and people living with dementia.

Before our inspection visit we reviewed the information we held about Harrison House. This included notifications we had received from the provider, about incidents that affect the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service. We also tried to access the Provider Information Record (PIR) we received prior to our inspection. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This provided us with information and numerical data about the operation of the service. We could not access this form due to a technical issue on our behalf, however one had been submitted. We had received information from a third party organisation regarding the management of falls at the home, which had resulted in an external investigation, so we checked this as part of this inspection.

We spoke with five people who lived at the home, three care staff, one medical professional who was visiting the home at the time of our inspection, the activities coordinator and the chef. We also spoke with the operations manager, and the registered manager. We looked at the care plans and for three people and other related records. We checked the recruitment files for four staff. We also looked at other documentation associated to the running of the service

Updated 30 June 2017

This unannounced inspection of Harrison House took place on 25 May 2017.

Harrison House provides accommodation for up to 24 older people. The home is situated in grounds which form part of the Parkhaven Trust who are the provider organisation.

At the last inspection in May 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’. We found during this inspection that the service remained ‘Good.’

The registered provider had systems and processes in place to ensure that staff who worked at the home were recruited safely. Staff were able to describe the course of action they would take if they felt anyone was at risk of harm or abuse this included ‘whistleblowing’ to external organisations. Rotas showed there was an adequate number of staff employed by the service to support people safely within the home.

Risks were well assessed and information was updated as and when required. The registered provider had put additional risk assessments in place relating to falls management within the home. This was in response to an external investigation which had taken place. We viewed these procedures and how they worked. People were supported to manage their medication by staff who were trained to do so, and safe medication procedures were in place and followed.

All newly appointed staff were enrolled on the Care Certificate. Records showed that all staff training was in date. There was a supervision schedule in place, and all staff had received up to date supervisions and most had undergone an annual appraisal, any due were booked in to take place.

The registered provider was working in accordance with the Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and associated principles. We saw that where people could consent to decisions regarding their care and support this had been well documented, and where people lacked capacity, the appropriate best interest processes had been followed.

People we spoke with were complimentary about the staff, the registered manager and the service in general. People told us they liked the staff team who supported them. Staff gave us examples of how they preserved people’s dignity and privacy when providing care.

Complaints were well managed and documented in accordance with the registered provider’s complaints policy. The complaints policy contained contact details for the local authorities and commissioning groups.

Care plans contained information about people’s likes, dislikes, preferences and personalities. Staff we spoke with demonstrated that they knew the people they supported well, and enjoyed the relationships they had built with people.

Quality assurance systems were effective and measured service provision. Regular audits were taking place for different aspects of service delivery. Action plans were drawn up when areas of improvement were identified. Staff meetings and resident meetings took place.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.