Halland House

Updated 10 February 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 26 January 2021 and was announced.

Updated 10 February 2021

We inspected Halland Hose on the 12 June 2017 and the inspection was unannounced. Halland House provides care and support for people living with learning disabilities and complex communication needs. The service is registered to accommodate up to 30 people, and is split across three separate residential units. At the time of our inspection, there were 27 people living at the service.

At the last inspection on 28 April 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found some areas of practice that need improvement, however the overall rating for Halland House remains as ‘Good’. We will review the overall rating at the next comprehensive inspection, where we will look at all aspects of the service and to ensure the improvements have been made and sustained.

Environmental health and safety checks took place on a regular basis. However, monthly water temperature checks identified that the service’s hot water in communal bathrooms was running above 44c. Guidance produced by the Health and Safety Executive advises that hot water in care homes should not exceed 43c. The provider was responsive to our concerns; however, documentation reflected that water temperatures had been running above the recommendation temperature for the past three months. No harm had occurred to people; however, we have identified this as an area of practice that needs improvement.

Staff continued to demonstrate a good knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA 2005). Mental capacity assessments were in place but had not considered people's ability to make a capacitated decision about living at the service when an application for deprivation of liberty safeguard had been made. Improvements were made during the inspection. However, we have made a recommendation about the oversight of mental capacity.

People were encouraged and supported to eat and drink well. Care plans included clear guidance on people's nutritional needs and the level of support required. There remained an open, transparent culture and good communication within the staff team. Staff spoke highly of the registered manager and their leadership style. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs and to keep them safe. The provider had effective recruitment and selection procedures in place.

People continued to be protected from the risk of potential abuse. Staff were aware of the signs of abuse and understood the safeguarding procedures in place about how to report any concerns to protect people from possible harm. Staff assessed risks to people and the registered manager put plans in place to reduce the impact of those risks.

Staff continued to receive the training and support they needed to undertake their roles. Staff attended specific training to help enhance them to understand people's individual needs and how to support them. The management of epilepsy and seizure’s remained safe. Clear guidelines were in place and all staff had received training in the administration of emergency medicines.

People continued to receive individualised care. People's needs were assessed to identify each person's needs and wishes. People had care plans that staff regularly reviewed to ensure people received support in line with their changing needs and preferences. The service worked positively with healthcare professionals and organisations to ensure people's needs were met.

Staff told us they continued to work as part of a team, that the home was a good place to work and staff were committed to providing care that was centred on people's individual needs. There was a strong caring culture in the care and support team.

The provider continued to have arrangements in place for the safe ordering, administration, storage and disposal of medicines. People were supported to get their medicines safely when they needed it.

Staff continued to treat people as individuals with dignity and respect. Staff were knowledgeable about people's likes, dislikes, preferences and care needs. Staff were skilled to approach people in different ways to suit the person and communicate in a calm and friendly manner which people responded to positively. People's preferences and social needs were respected. Activities were many, stimulating and varied and people were supported to maintain links with the community and their relatives.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.