• Care Home
  • Care home

Adam House

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

21 Ormerod Rd, Burnley, Lancashire, BB11 2RU

Provided and run by:
Healycare Limited

Report from 13 May 2024 assessment

Ratings

  • Overall

    Requires improvement

  • Safe

    Requires improvement

  • Effective

    Good

  • Caring

    Good

  • Responsive

    Good

  • Well-led

    Requires improvement

Our view of the service

Adam House provides accommodation and personal care to people with a learning disability, autistic people and those who require support with their mental health. During our inspection we reviewed elements of the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions. We undertook on-site visits on 24 and 28 May 2024. We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance the Care Quality Commission (CQC) follows to make judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it. This provider is required to have a registered manager to oversee the delivery of regulated activities at this location. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission. At the time of our inspection the day to day running of the service was carried out by a manger with oversight from a registered manager. We identified breaches of the regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, safeguarding, governance, and recruitment. We found concerns relating to safety of the environment, peoples risk management and medicines management. Incident records were not always fully completed, and referrals had not always been made to the appropriate agencies. Records relating to people’s care were not always detailed or completed consistently, so we could not be confident people’s needs were fully considered or met. Quality assurance and governance systems were not effective. Policies and procedures had not always been followed. Safe recruitment practices had not always been adhered to. Staff showed a clear understanding of people and their needs. We received good feedback from staff in relation to the manager and said they felt confident to speak up about concerns or bad practice.

People's experience of this service

People and relatives were mostly complimentary about their overall experiences. We received positive examples of staff supporting people in-line with their needs and preferences, improving health and well-being. A relative told us, “Yes, they do a healthy eating plan with [person], [person] goes to the gym.” People confirmed took part in activities relevant to them and had personalised activity plans in place. One person told us, “I decide what I want to do then staff support me and help me go to different places. I am going to bingo this week and I have been out for lunch. I also help with washing up and cleaning.” While most people and their relatives we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found elements of care did not meet the expected standards.