Archived: Home from Home

Home from Home is a small residential care home. The regulated activity is accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care but with a condition that the registered provider must not provide nursing care at the registered location. Home from Home provide care to a maximum of two people. At the time of inspection there was only one person receiving a service from the provider.

There was a condition that the service required a registered manager. 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. We confirmed during the inspection that a registered manager was in post.

People told us they liked living at the home and that they felt safe. This showed in the way people were at ease and relaxed in the company of the provider. We saw that the provider cared for people so that their well-being and safety was promoted.

The provider undertook assessments of risk to people who used the service and wrote plans on how to manage the risks to keep people safe. The provider understood how to protect people from abuse and harm and was able to talk about how to protect people from bullying and harassment. The provider was knowledgeable about how to report any concerns to relevant organisations.

There were arrangements in place to help protect people from the risk of financial abuse and for ensuring people received their medication safely.

The provider had supported and provided care for people who used the service for many years and used this knowledge about people’s needs, preferences and choices in planning the support required by people.

We saw that the provider sought peoples consent in day to day decisions and that they supported people to make bigger and more complex decisions. All decisions were undertaken in people’s best interests.

People were given food they liked and enjoyed eating. The provider ensured that people received a varied range of healthy cooked foods. The provider had good knowledge of people’s health issues and changes in their health.

People liked living at Home From Home. They were able to do activities they liked doing. People were involved in decisions about the home and the provider talked with people regularly about the things people wanted to do.

The provider worked with people in a caring and respectful way and was available at all times to meet people’s requests. The provider delivered care in a sensitive way such that people’s dignity was maintained and their privacy promoted.

The provider recorded and reviewed information of people's likes and dislikes, routines and support needs to ensure people received a responsive service.

The provider ensured that people’s preferences were taken into account and that their needs were met on a day to day basis. The provider made changes to people’s care and support needs when needed, including the purchase of additional equipment for people.

The provider had a system for capturing people’s concerns and complaints.

The provider had a registered manager in place therefore fulfilling the condition on their registration. The provider had systems in place to ensure the CQC were informed of notifiable incidents.

The provider was a sole owner, registered manager and provider of the care and support to the one person who resided at Home from Home. Therefore, the systems for quality audits and governance were proportionate to the size of the provider.

We spoke with the provider, who was also the registered manager of the home, and the person who lived in the home. We observed how the person that lived in the home was supported and how the provider interacted with them to get a view of the care they experienced.

We considered all of the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes that we inspected. Below is a summary of what we found. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We observed the interactions between the person who lived in the home and the provider. The person looked at ease in their surroundings. The provider spoke with them in a calm and friendly manner.

We saw there were systems in place to ensure people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

The provider was alert to the signs of abuse or potential abuse. They understood their obligation to report any concerns..

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes and hospitals. No applications had been made. The manager understood how this legislation applied to people and protected their rights.

We found that equipment was serviced at regular intervals to ensure it was safe to use.

Is the service effective?

People's care and health needs were assessed and planned for. The person that lived in the home was consulted about their care and how they wanted their care delivered. Specialist mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.

It was clear from our observations and from speaking with the provider that they had a good understanding of the person's care and support needs and knew them well. We saw the person's care plans and risk assessments were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure their changing needs were planned for.

Is the service caring?

The person that lived in the home was supported by a kind and attentive provider. We saw that the provider was available at all times, showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. The person living in the home told us, 'I'm always alright.'

The person's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with their wishes. The suggestions and ideas voiced by the person were followed up.

Is the service responsive?

We saw the care plan and risk assessments for the person that lived in the home were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure their changing needs were planned for.

Records confirmed the person's preferences, interests, and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. The person that lived in the home had access to activities and were able to maintain relationships with their relatives.

Records showed that the provider responded quickly to changes in the person's health. We saw the person that lived in the home had access to a variety of health care providers to ensure their needs could be met.

Is the service well led?

The provider, who was also the registered manager of the home, had cared for the person living in the home for over 20 years. The provider was experienced and caring and knew how best to meet the needs of the person living in the home in an individualised way.

The person that lived in the home was consulted on a daily basis about the running of the home and how they wanted to spend their time. There were systems in place to ensure the quality of the service was regularly assessed and monitored.

At the time of our last inspection of the home we found that all of the records required to be kept by the provider were not available for inspection. The findings of this inspection showed that improvements had been made and this standard was now being met.

People were supported in a way that ensured that their privacy, dignity and independence to be respected. We saw that the provider spoke to both people with respect. The provider asked one person to be a part of the inspection. This meant people's preferences were respected.

The provider was knowledgeable about people's care needs. We saw that health care professionals were involved when required. This meant the provider ensured people's care and health needs were met.

The provider had effective infection control procedures. This meant the risk of infection for people using the service was minimised.

Records relating to care planning, medical conditions, and people's personal expenditure, were not available and easily accessible during our visit. This meant we could not ensure that records were personalised to the individual.