Archived: Friday House

We considered our inspections findings to answer questions we always ask:

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service caring?

People were provided with care based upon their assessed needs. Staff's knowledge about each person's individual needs demonstrated that people received the care they needed in a way that they had agreed to. People were provided with care and support which respected their independence and enabled them to take risks where this was safe to do so. Risks to people's health had been assessed and recorded by staff to ensure people's safety People's health was managed in a way that supported them to access relevant health care professional whenever they wanted or needed to. This included specific risks such as those for malnutrition or dehydration, seizures, falls or choking. People would be supported in the event of a foreseeable emergency by trained staff.

Is the service safe?

People were supported to access the wider community and with their chosen social activities such as, playing golf, going to the theatre or attending a day centre. The information and guidance provided in people's plans of care meant that staff supported people in a safe way. Where people communicated in a non-verbal way, the provider used other methods to ensure that people only received care that they had agreed to. The registered manager ensured that staff who provided care had been trained to meet their roles and responsibilities.

Staff had a good knowledge of the procedures to be followed should they ever suspect, or identify, that a person's capacity to agree to their care had changed. Safeguards were in place to ensure that people who could not make decisions for themselves were not unlawfully deprived of their liberty.

The timely and regular completion of statutory inspections for things such as Legionella bacteria, electrical systems, fire safety and food hygiene meant that people's safety was protected as much as possible.

Is the service effective?

Staff were provided with regular training and updates when this was required. Records we looked at confirmed that the majority of staff were up to date with their training needs. Staff we spoke with told us that they were able to gain health care qualifications appropriate to their role. Where changes were required to people's care and support needs, we saw that these had been implemented by staff. This was for things such as en-suite facilities to support people with their dignity. Where people required additional support such as we saw that plans were in place to meet people's needs effectively. Relatives we spoke with told us that the service reliably met their family member's needs.

Where people were at an increased risk of choking or malnutrition, measures had been put in pace to ensure that people maintained a healthy weight.

Is the service responsive?

The conducting of regular audits and checks meant that changes to people's needs could be identified and implemented to ensure that people's needs were responded to in a timely manner. Quality assurance procedures and guidance were in place to ensure that people were provided with care based upon their most up to date needs. People we spoke with, or communicated with, confirmed to us that they had a positive experience of using the service.

Care staff told us that improvements to the service had been in response to concerns from relatives and people's representatives. People were supported with the social activities they wanted to do at a time they wanted to do these.

People's plans of care had been developed with them and were reviewed in response to any changes. This ensured that people's needs were consistently met. Where accidents or incidents had occurred we saw that appropriate action had been taken to reduce the potential for any future recurrence. We saw that people using the service had not been unlawfully deprived of the liberty.

Is the service well led?

At the time of our inspection the registered manager was managing the service. They had been in post for over three years. We saw that there had been improvements since our last inspection to people's plans of care, advocacy support and people's daily social activity opportunities.

We saw that regular and constructive staff supervisions had been completed to ensure that staff were working to the required standard. Staff we spoke with told us that if ever they had any concerns or something needed changing that action was taken as soon as practicable. For example, to the way people were supported with their behaviours and health conditions.

Support was provided to people who used the service to maintain their health and well being. People's individual social and health care needs were assessed and planned and action was taken to meet people's individual assessed needs.

There were medication management systems in place which protected people who used the service from unsafe usage of medication.

People who used the service liked the members of staff and had good relationships with them. There were effective selection and recruitment systems in place to ensure that vulnerable people who used the service were protected from unsuitable prospective staff.

There was a system in place to respond to any complaints made against Friday House. People who used the service were happy with living at the home and had no cause to make a complaint.