This comprehensive inspection took place on 29 and 30 September 2016 and was announced. We announced the inspection because people living at Helen House attended day services and other activities and staff accompanied them. We wanted to be sure there would be someone there.Helen House is part of a wide range of services provided by the registered charity Wirral Autistic Society. The house is on the Raby Hall campus alongside other Wirral Autistic Society services. Helen House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 20 people. At the time of this inspection there were 15 people living at the service. Three of the 15 people lived in an annex building consisting of three separate flats.
The service is located on the Raby Hall site and is a distinct and separate building from the others.
Helen House is owned and staffed by the provider, Wirral Autistic Society (WAS), which now has the ‘working name’ of Autism Together. The service is still registered as being provided by WAS. Also nearby this building were other WAS homes and a home farm centre and day services for the people living on the site.
The home 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 looked at information the Care Quality Commission (CQC) had received about the service including notifications received from the registered manager. We checked that we had received these in a timely manner. We also looked at safeguarding referrals, complaints and any other information from members of the public.
The home was furnished in a homely way which was according to people’s taste, especially in their own rooms. We observed the people in the home on the days of our inspection. However, we were unable to speak with the people as most had limited verbal communication. We spoke with the relatives of the six people who used the service. They gave us their views on the service and about the care provided to their family members. People appeared happy and comfortable with their surroundings and with staff.
We saw that people received sufficient quantities of food and drink and had a choice in the meals that they received.
Medication procedures were followed and the medication stored tallied with the records.
The provider had complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and its associated codes of practice in the delivery of care. We found that the staff had followed the requirements and principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff we spoke with had an understanding of what their role was and what their obligations where in order to maintain people’s rights.
We found that the care plans and risk assessment monthly review records were all up to date in the files looked at and there was updated information that reflected the changes of people’s health.
The home used safe systems for recruiting new staff. These included using Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. New staff had an induction programme in place that included training them to ensure they were competent in their role at the home. Staff told us they did feel supported by the team leaders, deputy team leaders and the registered manager.
The staffing levels were seen to be appropriate to support people and meet their needs and the staff we spoke with considered there were adequate staff on duty.
Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to ensure that appropriate action was taken to prevent further incidents. Staff knew what to do if any difficulties arose whilst supporting somebody, or if an accident happened.
We looked at records relating to the safety of the premises and its equipment, which were correctly recorded.