We carried out an inspection of Burnley Pendle & Rossendale Short Break Services (Haddon House) on 14, 15, 19 and 22 September 2016. The first day was unannounced. On the 19 and 22 September we spoke with relatives/carers via telephone to gain their views of the service. We last inspected the home on 6 May 2014 and found the service was meeting the regulations that were applicable at that time.Burnley Pendle & Rossendale Short Break Services (Haddon House) is a purpose built home situated in Burnley. The home provides care and support for up to 6 people with a learning disability and or physical disability in single occupancy rooms. Bedrooms were spacious and had en suite facilities. There were various aids to support people with mobility difficulties such as overhead tracking, specialist bathing facilities, dining space for wheelchairs and beds specific to people’s needs. All areas were tastefully decorated and furnished to a high standard. There were 5 people accommodated in the home at the time of the inspection.
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.
During this inspection we found the service was meeting the current regulations.
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 self-determining in how they lived their lives. All the people, their relatives, visiting professionals and staff we spoke with had nothing but praise for the service and the excellent quality of life people experienced. People’s rights to privacy, dignity, and freedom of choice were firmly embedded into the culture of the home and people’s diversity was embraced.
People living in the home and their relatives described the service as excellent. They said there was and never had been any cause for concern in how people were treated. Staff were described as having ‘special qualities’, ‘professional’, ‘caring and understanding’.
There was sufficient staff who had been carefully recruited and matched directly with people to ensure people received a personal service.
Safeguarding referral procedures were in place and staff had a good understanding around recognising the signs of abuse and had undertaken safeguarding training. Staff were clear about their responsibilities for reporting incidents in line with local guidance.
Risks to people’s health, welfare and safety were managed very well. Risk assessments were thorough and informed staff of the actions to take to support people safely. Staff fully understood how people with limited or no use of words communicated distress in different situations or circumstances and had been trained in positive behaviour support.
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.
Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that people’s rights were protected where they were unable to make decisions for themselves. Staff understood the importance of gaining consent from people and the principles of best interest decisions. People with limited use of words and where English was not their first language, were supported very well through preferred communication methods, such as interpreters, body language, and use of pictorial signs to express their wishes and choices. Routine choices such as preferred daily routines and level of support from staff for personal care was acknowledged and respected.
All people we spoke with were very positive about staff knowledge and skills and felt their needs were being met appropriately. Staff felt 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. They were highly motivated and committed to providing a high quality of care.
People were provided with a nutritionally balanced 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 were catered for including those diets relating to cultural and religious observance.
The home provided a well maintained very pleasant and homely environment for people. It was fully equipped to support people with a physical and learning disability.
People’s care and support was kept under continuous review. The service worked in partnership with relevant health and social care professionals to ensure people’s changing needs were being managed well. This meant people received prompt, co-ordinated and effective care.
People were cared for by staff who demonstrated exceptional insight and understanding of people’s personal values and needs. The service was described as going above and beyond people’s expectations. There was a culture of valuing people embedded within the service. Privacy, dignity, independence, choice and rights were at the heart of the service they received.
Staff demonstrated through their actions, people were very important and unique. Staff had been very well trained to ensure people’s rights were upheld. We found staff were very respectful to people, attentive to their needs and treated people with kindness and respect in their day to day care. People using the service, relatives, visitors and health professionals all spoke very highly of the high standards afforded to people using the service. The care was described as ‘going above and beyond’ ‘exceptional’ and ‘remarkable’.
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. People who had difficulty using words or expressing their needs were very well supported to use 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 for people were personal to their requirements and expressed wishes, meaningful and varied.
Raising issues was an on-going theme within the service with the purpose of raising standards and people were actively encouraged to give feedback on their experience. The complaints procedure was accessible to all and a ‘niggles book’ was kept to record minor issues people raised. People had confidence in the registered manager to deal professionally with any complaint they raised.
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.
Equality and diversity, privacy, dignity, freedom of choice was firmly embedded and reflected in the high standards of care people received.
There was an excellent standard of organisation within the service that fully supported continuous improvement and ensured people received a high quality service.
Staff were valued and respected and this was reflected in their work ethics.
We found 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 and were actively encouraged to make recommendations for improvement. Results of surveys showed a very high satisfaction with the facilities, the staff and registered manager.
There was an effective and thorough quality assurance system in place to ensure any improvements needed within the service were recognised and the necessary action was taken to implement any changes.