Archived: Harrison House

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.

This was an unannounced inspection which took place over two days on 6 & 11 May 2015. The service was last inspected in January 2014 and was meeting standards at that time.

At the time of the inspection the registered manager had left the home to move to another position at another service with the same provider as a planned move. There was a new acting manager who advised us they would be applying for registration. 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.

When we spoke with people living at Harrison House they told us they were settled and felt safe at home. All of the people we spoke with commented on consistent good standards of care.

To support the 22 people accommodated at the home on our inspection there was normally a minimum of five care staff. We saw from the duty rota that this staff ratio was consistently in place to provide safe care.

We looked at how staff were recruited and the processes to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. We saw checks had been made so that staff employed were ‘fit’ to work with vulnerable people.

We found the home were good at managing risks so that people could be as independent as possible. We spoke with health care professionals who supported people in the home. They felt that staff managed people’s care needs well and this included ensuring their safety.

When asked about medicines, people said they were supported well. We saw there were good systems in place to monitor medication safety and that staff were trained and assessed to help ensure there competency so that they received their medicines safely.

The staff we spoke with clearly described how they would recognise abuse and the action they would take to ensure actual or potential harm was reported. Training records confirmed staff had undertaken safeguarding training. All of the staff we spoke with were clear about the need to report any concerns they had.

Arrangements were in place for checking the environment to ensure it was safe. For example, health and safety audits were completed on a regular basis where obvious hazards were identified. We were concerned with one risk that had been identified by routine checks carried out by staff had not been reported through to maintenance for action. This exposed people to risk for an unreasonable length of time. The manager said they would ensure that any such issues were reported through more effectively in the future.

We observed staff provide support and the interactions we saw showed how staff communicated and supported people as individuals. Staff were able to explain each person’s care needs and how they communicated these needs. People we spoke with, relatives and health care professionals were aware that staff had the skills and approach needed to ensure people were receiving the right care.

We saw that the home was working within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) [MCA]. This is legislation to protect and empower people who may not be able to make their own decisions.

People told us the meals were good and well presented. We observed and spoke with people enjoying breakfast and lunch. We were told that breakfast was flexible and there was always choice available with all meals.

We asked people if they were treated with dignity, respect, kindness and compassion. People said their privacy was respected and they were well cared for. Comments include: ‘’The staff here are lovely - all of them’’, ‘’ We are very well looked after’’ and ‘’I like living here. I’ve been here a long time and love it.’’ We made observations at times throughout the inspection. The interactive skills displayed by the staff when engaged with people were supportive and people’s sense of wellbeing was very evident.

We found that care plans and records were individualised to people’s preferences and reflected their identified needs from admission and during their stay. There was evidence that care plans had been discussed with people so they felt involved in their care. The manager said this would be developed further to ensure people’s involvement was more formalised.

Social activities were organised. These were both community activities and also some individualised activities and outings. There was a staff member who organised and supported activities in the home.

Well-developed processes were in place to seek the views of people living at the home and their families. The manager was able to evidence a series of quality assurance processes and audits carried out. These were fairly comprehensive and helped ensure standards of care were maintained consistently as well as providing feedback for ongoing development of the service.