Archived: Ted Hennem House

Updated 19 May 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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.

Before the inspection we checked the information we held about the service. This included any notifications and safeguarding alerts. We also contacted the local borough contracts and commissioning teams that had placements at the service and the local borough safeguarding team.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector. On the day of the inspection we spoke with the coordinator of the service, two care workers and five people who used the service. We looked at three care files, daily records of care, three staff recruitment files, training records and policies and procedures for the service.

Updated 19 May 2016

We inspected Ted Hennem House on 4 March 2016. This was an announced inspection. We informed the provider 24 hours in advance of our visit that we would be inspecting. This was to ensure there was somebody at the location to facilitate our inspection.

Ted Hennem House is operated by the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. It provides care and support, but not nursing care to people aged 55 and over in an Extra Care setting. People who live in Extra Care Housing have their own self contained homes and receive support from carers that are provided either by an external agency or by Ted Hennem House. At the time of the inspection eight people were receiving personal care from Ted Hennem House.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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.

Systems were in place to ensure that people using the service were safe. Care staff had undertaken training about safeguarding adults and had a good understanding about safeguarding principles and how to raise an alert. Risk assessments were carried out and were robust and detailed.

Medicines were managed safely for people. Effective systems for the management, administration, storage, and disposal of medicines were in place.

Care staff were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to ensure people using the service were given support to make decisions. Care staff were mindful of consent and ensuring that people were given autonomy and respect.

Care staff received relevant training to their role as well as a detailed induction programme and we saw records of robust recruitment. Relevant checks had been carried out before staff commenced employment.

Staff appraisal, training, and supervision supported them in their role. Care staff understood best practice guidance and implemented them to meet the needs of people. The coordinator for the service and registered manager supported staff so that they were effective in their role to care for people and deliver quality care.

People had access to health care services to meet their needs and professional guidance was implemented to maintain their health.

Care plans were detailed and person centred and people were involved in their care planning and decision making. Staff knew people well, were aware of their personal histories, and understood their likes and dislikes. Care and support delivered to people centred on their individual needs, preferences, and choices. Care staff provided care and support to people in a way which respected their dignity and privacy.

The coordinator for the service had a good relationship with care staff and the people using the service and their relatives. There was open communications between all parties. The service had quality assurance methods in place.