The inspection of Kirkgate House – Care Home took place on 5 April 2017 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 2 July 2015 the service met all of the regulations we assessed under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At that inspection the service was rated ‘Good’. However, the registered provider was recommended to ensure that further repairs to the premises were made, after meeting the requirements of a breach of regulation 15 identified at an earlier inspection on 14 November 2014. Kirkgate House – Care Home is situated on the edge of the town of Bridlington in East Yorkshire with easy access to the town centre and transport links to other towns and cities in the county. It is a purpose built premises, which can accommodate up to 28 people all in single bedrooms. The premises have been modelled to house people in units and each unit has its own kitchen, lounge, activity area and bathroom. There are also two self-contained flats. The service specialises in care for people with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were 28 people using the service, most of whom had lived at Kirkgate House – Care Home for many years.
The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post. On the day of the inspection there was a registered manager that had been in post for the last six years. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 had excellent opportunities to engage in occupation, pastimes and activities if they wished to in order to lead fulfilling lifestyles and to develop their potential. They were empowered to engage in the local community as citizens and to take part in innovative ways of having their needs met.
People’s relationships were extremely well supported and encouraged so that people had very good family connections and support networks. All of this meant that people had an enhanced sense of wellbeing and an exceptional quality of life.
We saw that people were supported according to their detailed and person-centred support plans, which reflected their needs well and were regularly reviewed.
There was an effective complaint procedure in place and people had their complaints investigated quickly and without bias.
We saw that the service was well-led and both the culture and the management style of the service were positive, progressive, approachable, inclusive, open and honest. The management team and staff were powerful role models for people with regard to learning and developing life skills and engaging and being active in the community. This had been the case for many years.
There was a 'bespoke' and effective system in place for checking the quality of the service provided using audits, satisfaction surveys, meetings and a pledge to provide a high-quality service via the organisation's SHINE initiative, which underpinned the visions and values and put people at the heart of the service.
Recording systems used in the service and practices in handling information protected people's privacy and confidentiality. Records were well maintained and held securely on the premises.
People were protected from the risk of harm because the registered provider had systems in place to detect, monitor and report potential or actual safeguarding concerns. Staff were appropriately trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of managing potential and actual safeguarding concerns.
Risks were managed and reduced on an individual and group basis so that people avoided injury or harm wherever possible.
The premises were safely maintained and there was evidence in the form of maintenance certificates, contracts and records to show this.
Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s need. Recruitment policies, procedures and practices were carefully followed to ensure staff were suitable to support vulnerable people.
We found that the management of medicines was safely carried out.
People were cared for and supported by qualified and competent staff that were regularly supervised and had their personal performance annually appraised by an equally qualified and competent management team. Communication was effective and people’s mental capacity was appropriately assessed and their rights were protected.
Employees of the service had knowledge and understanding of their roles and responsibilities in respect of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and they understood the importance of people being supported to make decisions for themselves.
The registered manager was able to explain how the service worked with other health and social care professionals and family members to ensure a decision was made in a person’s best interests where they lacked capacity to make their own decisions.
People were provided with the nutrition and hydration they needed to maintain their health and wellbeing. The premises were suitable for providing care and support to people with a learning or physical disability and action was being taken to ensure the environment was appropriately adapted to meet the needs of those people that had been diagnosed as living with dementia.
People were compassionately supported by staff that were kind and knew about people’s needs and preferences. People were involved in all aspects of their care and were always asked for their consent before staff undertook care and support tasks.
People’s wellbeing, privacy, dignity and independence were monitored. This ensured people were respected and enabled to take control of their lives.