Healey House

Updated 18 November 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 27 and 28 September 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service such as notifications, complaints and safeguarding information. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We also obtained the local authority commissioning teams and health and social care professionals views about the service which were very positive.

During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, the assistant manager, three support staff and with four people who used the service. We also spoke with three relatives following the inspection and received feedback about the service from two health and social care professionals.

We looked at three people’s care records and other associated documentation, two staff recruitment and induction records, staff rotas, training and supervision records, minutes from meetings, complaints and compliments records, medication records, maintenance certificates and development plans, policies and procedures and quality assurance audits. We also looked at the results from the recent satisfaction survey conducted by the service.

Updated 18 November 2017

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Healey House on 27 and 28 September 2017.

Healey House provides accommodation and personal care and support for up to ten people with a learning disability. The service does not provide nursing care. At the time of the inspection there were nine people accommodated in the home.

Healey House comprises of the main house which accommodates eight people and the bungalow accommodating two people. Healey House and bungalow are situated in landscaped gardens off the main road in Whitworth and is within easy reach of Rochdale and surrounding areas. The home is part of a wider service provision which includes a day care facility, respite care and supported living.

The service was managed by 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.

At our last inspection on 28 October 2014 we found the service was meeting all the standards assessed.

At this inspection we found the service provided an outstanding level of care and support that placed people at the heart of their care and promoted their right to be independent and to determine how they lived their lives. All the people we spoke with had nothing but praise for the service and the excellent quality of life people living in the service experienced. People’s rights to privacy, dignity, and freedom of choice were firmly embedded into the culture of the home. Staff embraced people's diversity and this was reflected in the support plans we saw.

The service was very much a family run service. The provider and the providers' family members were known by staff and people using the service and were a visible presence in the service. We observed excellent relationships between people and observed the senior management team and staff interacting with people in a caring, good humoured and friendly manner. Management and staff demonstrated exceptional insight and understanding of people’s personal values and needs. People were happy and relaxed with staff and we overheard much laughter and also meaningful conversations during our visit.

Everyone we spoke with was very complimentary about the service. People, their relatives, staff and professionals to the home described the management and leadership of the service as exceptional. The registered manager was referred to as ‘an excellent leader who placed people at the heart of everything they did’. There was an excellent standard of organisation within the service that fully supported continuous improvement and ensured people received a high quality service that met their needs and expectations.

People living in the home told us they felt safe and staff treated them well. Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse and had challenged other services when people were not being treated fairly. People using the service had undertaken safeguarding and health and safety training with staff; this had helped them recognise when they were at risk and the action they needed to take to keep themselves and others safe. We found examples of when people had raised their concerns with staff and the registered manager and they had been acted on appropriately. Staff were clear about their responsibilities for reporting incidents in line with local guidance.

People had been consulted about their needs and aspirations. Each person had been involved in the development of their own support plans and risk assessments which provided clear guidance for staff on how to meet their needs and preferences. Care and support was focused on people's wishes and preferences and people were supported to be as independent as possible in all aspects of their lives such as activities, outings and meal preparation. Assessment of people’s needs was an on-going process which meant any changes to their care was managed very well. Communication between people using the service, relatives and staff was seen to be excellent by the inspection team. People who had difficulty using words or expressing their needs were very well supported by the use of other methods of communication to relay their wishes and feelings.

People were supported to live full and active lives and use local services and facilities. Activities were provided both inside and outside the wider service. Activities were meaningful, varied, personal to people’s requirements and in line with their wishes and aspirations. People were supported to keep in contact with friends and family and there were excellent facilities within the wider service for people to meet with their friends, family and the local community. Facilities included a service user led forum that met regularly to suggest and drive forward improvements and developments to the service that they felt were important. The forum members had developed policies and procedures that were user friendly, accessible and meaningful to people using the service. There was also a social centre, run by a committee of service users, which held evening and daytime activities, events and entertainments for people, their families and friends.

Risks to people’s health, welfare and safety were managed very well. Risk assessments were wide ranging and thorough and informed staff of the actions to take to support people safely. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Staff fully understood how people with limited communication expressed themselves and in some cases indicated distress in different situations or circumstances. Staff had been trained in positive behaviour support which helped them to respond to difficult situations in an appropriate and safe way.

There were appropriate arrangements in place in relation to the safe storage, receipt, administration and disposal of medicines. Staff responsible for administering medicines had been trained.

The staff team was happy working at Healey House. They were a stable team of staff who were highly motivated and committed to providing a high quality of care. People were supported by a staff team that cared about them, knew them and who they knew well. There were sufficient numbers of skilled staff to ensure their care and support was provided flexibly to meet their needs. Safe recruitment procedures were followed to ensure prospective staff were suitable to work in the home. People were involved in the selection of new staff and records showed they had a good awareness about the skills and personality they wanted new staff to have. Records showed people's opinions about new staff had been respected.

Everyone we spoke with was very positive about staff knowledge and skills and felt their needs, or those of their family member or their client, were being met appropriately. Staff felt valued and respected by the management team. They were confident in their roles because they were well trained and supported by the registered manager to gain further skills and qualifications relevant to their work.

There were appropriate arrangements in place to support people to have a varied and healthy diet. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals to ensure people’s dietary needs were met and potential problems associated with nutritional intake were avoided. Special diets such as low fat and vegetarian diets were catered for, including those diets relating to cultural and religious observance.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and ensure people received safe and effective care. These included innovative ways of seeking and responding to feedback from people in relation to the standard of care. There was evidence where people’s views and opinions had been listened to and acted on in areas such as activities, staffing, mealtimes and environment.

There were effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service. People using the service, their relatives, professionals and staff contributed to the evaluation of the service. The results of surveys showed a very high satisfaction with all aspects of the service.