Archived: Harper House - Wolverhampton

Harper House is a residential care home that was providing accommodation and personal care to 15 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection.

Harper House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

• The provider had processes in place for recruitment, staffing levels, medicines management, infection control and upkeep of the premises which protected people from unsafe situations and harm.

• Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and discrimination. They knew to report any concerns and ensure action was taken. The registered manager worked with the local authority safeguarding adults team to protect people.

• Staff were trained and supported to be skilled and efficient in their roles. They were very happy about the level of training and support they received and showed competence when supporting people.

• Staff promoted people’s dignity and privacy. Staff provided person-centred support by listening to people and engaging them at every opportunity. Staff were very kind and caring and people using the service were happy with the support they received.

• Support plans were detailed and reviewed with the person and staff who supported the person. Staff looked to identify best practise and used this to people’s benefit. Staff worked with and took advice from healthcare professionals. People’s health care needs were met.

• People had a variety of internal activities (such as games and karaoke) and external activities which they enjoyed on a regular basis.

• People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

• The premises provided people with a variety of spaces for their use with relevant facilities to meet their needs. Bedrooms were very individual and age and gender appropriate.

• The provider sought the views of people and took opportunities to improve the service. Staff were supervised, supported and clear about what was expected of them. Audits and checks were carried out, so any problem could be identified and rectified.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated Good (08 October 2016). At this inspection, the service remained Good.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection to confirm that this service remained Good.

Harper House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 15 people, including older people and people with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people living in the home.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. 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.

People who lived at Harper House told us they felf safe. Staff knew how to keep people safe and how to recognise signs of abuse. Staff knew how to manage risks to people. People told us and we saw there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. Systems were in place to ensure people received their medicine when they needed it.

Some people told us they enjoyed the food. Some people told us they not always offered meals of their choosing. People were supported by staff who had appropriate training to meet their needs. When people lacked capacity to make a decision for themselves assessments were in place and the registered manager had applied to the local authority to deprive them of their liberty appropriately. People had access to healthcare professionals when they required extra support to keep them healthy.

People told us they were supported by kind and caring staff. Staff understood the needs of people. Positive relationships had developed between people and staff. People told us staff respected their privacy and dignity. People told us and we saw staff encouraged people to remain independent.

People were supported by staff who understood their individual care needs. Staff knew people’s personal preferences and respected them when supporting them with their care needs. People had access to leisure activities of their choice. People told us they knew how to complain but had not had a reason to. Systems were in place to monitor any complaints when they occurred.

People told us they were happy living in the home and they liked the management team. The registered manager and provider involved people and staff in the running of the home and listened to their opinions. Staff felt supported by the management structure. A system was in place to monitor the quality of the care in the home.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with people using the service and their relatives, the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Relatives of people who used the service told us they felt their relatives were safe. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported.

The home had appropriate policies and procedures to protect people's rights and choices and gain their consent to the care and support they received. The home's policies reflected the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff had received training in how to protect people's rights and understood legal requirements.

Staff knew about risk management plans and we saw that they supported people in line with those plans.

The home worked well with other professionals to ensure that people's health care needs were met in a safe way.

The registered manager ensured that staff rotas were planned in advance to maintain the staffing numbers required to provide care in a safe way. The staff had the training and support required to ensure that people's needs were met.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and checks made on the service. This reduces the risk to people and helps the service to continually improve.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them and where people wanted family members were involved. People told us they were involved in the care planning and reviews of care. We saw that care plans were regularly updated.

Where people had complex needs that required the input of specialist health care services, assessments had been made by the appropriate professionals. Their recommendations were carried out by the care staff.

Care staff receive the appropriate training to meet the diverse needs of people who used the service.

Visitors confirmed that they could visit when they wanted to and spend time alone in privacy if they wished.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by staff that were kind and caring. We saw that care staff gave people encouragement and were patient with them. One relative told us, 'I visit my relative regularly and the staff are very caring'.

People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People had the opportunity to engage in a range of different activities each day.

People were aware of the home's complaints procedure and knew how to raise concerns. One relative told us, 'They are very responsive to my relative's changing needs'.

The home had regular meetings with people who used the service which were recorded. The meetings took on board comments made to improve the service and acted on suggestions.

Where care staff had noticed people's changing needs, their care plans had been updated to reflect this.

Is the service well led?

The service had quality assurance and risk management systems in place, records seen by us indicated that shortfalls in the service were addressed promptly.

The staff were well supported to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to carry out the care people needed. Care staff were given feedback about their performance so improvements could be made where needed.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and understood the quality assurance and risk management systems. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality of care. Staff told us the home was well organised and they felt supported by their manager.

People's care was planned and delivered appropriately. One person said, 'It is fantastic here.' We found that people had access to other healthcare professionals in a timely manner.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that people were protected from the risk of harm. People we spoke with told us they felt safe at the home.

The management of medicines had improved and the home had robust arrangements in place.

We found that selection and recruitment processes were suitable to ensure that people were looked after by appropriate staff. One person told us, 'Staff are friendly and helpful.'

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. People's comments were taken seriously.

We saw that people were well presented and wore clothes that reflected their own preferences, style, and gender. We found that people were asked for their consent before care was delivered. One person told us, 'They ask us if they can do things before they do it.'

We found that people's care plans were basic. However, people received care that met their needs and preferences. One person said, 'It is OK here.'

We found that arrangements were not in place to ensure that people received their medicines as prescribed, and in a safe manner.

We found that there were enough staff to look after people on the day of the inspection. Training records showed that staff had access to different training to improve their skills and knowledge. One person said, 'Staff are very good.'

People we spoke with knew how to complain. We found that people's comments were taken seriously.