Archived: Enable Care & Home Support Limited - 11 Heathervale Close

Enable Care & Home Support Limited - 11 Heathervale Close is located in Hasland near Chesterfield, Derbyshire. It provides accommodation for up to 4 adults with a learning disability. Three people were using the service at the time of our inspection.

A requirement of the provider’s registration is that they have 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 the time of our inspection there was a registered manager who had been in post at the service four years.

Relatives told us they felt people were safe at the home. The registered manager and staff understood how to protect people they supported from abuse. They knew what procedures to follow to report any concerns they had. Staff had a good understanding of risks associated with people’s care needs and how to support them.

There were enough staff available to support people safely and at the times they preferred. Recruitment procedures made sure staff were of a suitable character to care for people at the home.

Medicines were stored and administered safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed. Regular audits were completed to ensure they were managed in line with good practice guidelines.

People were supported to maintain their health and well-being. They attended appointments when they needed to and their nutritional needs were met.

Staff were kind and supportive to people’s needs and people’s privacy and dignity was respected. People were encouraged to be independent and assisted with tasks around the home and shopping.

The management and staff teams understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and supported people in line with these principles. People were supported to make everyday decisions themselves, which helped them to maintain their independence. Where people were not able to make decisions, relatives, social workers and healthcare professionals were consulted for their advice and input.

People were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests both within and outside the home. Activities were arranged according to people’s individual preferences, needs and abilities.

People were encouraged to maintain links with their families. Relatives knew how to make a formal complaint and were able to discuss any concerns they had with staff. At the time of our inspection no complaints had been received.

Staff felt the management team were supportive and promoted an open culture within the home. Staff were able to discuss their own development and best practice in supervision and during regular team meetings.

New staff received an induction prior to working unsupervised and staff completed training in health and social care to develop their skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.

The registered manager felt supported by the provider who visited the home regularly. They told us their views and ideas about improving the service were encouraged.

The provider carried out audits to continually monitor and improve the quality of the service.

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment at the home had been well maintained and serviced regularly. There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people who lived there. We spent time observing people and noticed that they were cared for safely. Every member of staff we spoke with said that they were happy with staffing levels and said that these helped to provide safe and appropriate care.

Staff records demonstrated that mandatory training was up to date and that staff were trained to meet the complex needs of people. Staff were trained in the safe storage and administration of medicines, moving and handling and complex nutritional needs.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

During our visit we spent time observing people preparing to go out and spent time with people during their lunch. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of people's care and support needs and that they knew them well. For example, we noted that staff were able to tailor the way they spoke to each person, particularly their sense of humour and speech, to be able to make each person feel listened to and important.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living at the home and told us that they were able to put their training into practice.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people, especially when they needed help moving around and to eat. Staff took into account the complex needs of people when planning activities so that they could take part in these safely. Staff told us that they worked hard to make sure their training was applied to the individual needs of people so that they could be supported to take part in activities important to them.

Staff said that they were very happy with the level of professional and emotional support they received from the registered manager.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home and these were checked by regular reviews, in which they were involved. People's needs assessments included an assessment of their capacity to make decisions as well as consideration of their dietary and nutrition requirements.

People's preferences and interests were acted on by staff who used monthly meetings to support people to meet their needs and goals. People had access to activities that were designed to stimulate them and they were able to influence the running of the home.

Is the service well led?

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. Staff told us that they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and that management support helped them to do their job effectively. One person spent time talking with us and told us how supported they had felt.

We found that the registered manager had recently been changed and staff told us that this transition had been handled well and that their new manager was supportive and appreciated their work. We found that the manager of the home was named as Sally Sibbert, which differed from our records of the service. We were told that the new manager was in the process of registering.

The people and relatives told us that people were involved in choosing their food and drink and their special dietary needs were catered for. One person told us that the food was, 'nice'[we can] ask for what we want.' We noted, from reading records and our observations, that people's nutritional needs were being met.

People felt safe and confident with staff administering their medication and said they received their medicines when they were needed. However, systems to ensure the safe management of medicines were not fully adequate.

The people and relatives thought that staff had been recruited safely. One person told us, 'They're fantastic. They make time for me.' We found that appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

People told us they knew how to make a complaint and would feel comfortable in doing so. One person said, 'I'd go to any staff.' Staff were able to describe how people's changes of behaviour and facial expressions showed if they were unhappy.

The people we spoke with said that their privacy and dignity was respected at the service. One person said that staff, 'shut bathroom doors and bedrooms. It's my private space.' People were involved, as far as possible, in planning their care. Staff respected their personal preferences and people thought that their needs were met.

People said they felt safe living at the service and were well treated by staff. One person told us, 'We can go to staff and not bottle up [our worries].' Staff had received training that kept people safe and the people we spoke with felt that staff were well trained to meet their needs. Records we saw supported this.

People were asked for their views, and comments that they made were acted on. There were systems in place to identify and manage risks so that people were safe.