Archived: Hillingdon House

Updated 4 January 2018

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

This inspection took place on 28 November 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of a lead inspector and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert-by-experience used had experience of caring for a relative with a learning disability.

Before the inspection we reviewed information we kept about the service and previous inspection reports. This included notifications of incidents. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. This enabled us to ensure we were addressing potential areas of concern. We also emailed professionals and relatives of people who used the service to find out what they thought about the service.

During the inspection we used a range of methods to help us make our judgements. This included

talking to people using the service, their relatives and friends or other visitors, interviewing staff, pathway tracking (reading people’s care plans, and other records kept about them), observing care, and reviewed other records about how the service was managed. Many of the people at the service could only answer simple questions or were unable to speak with us due to their disabilities.

We looked at a range of records including three care plans, records about the operation of the medicines system, two personnel files, and other records about the management of the service.

Before, during and after the inspection we communicated with six staff, four relatives of people who used the service and five external professionals including specialist nurses, GP’s and social workers.

Updated 4 January 2018

We inspected Hillingdon House on 28 November 2017. The inspection was unannounced. At the last inspection, in November 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good. Hillingdon House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Hillingdon House accommodates 9 people with a learning disability.

The service had 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.

People who used the service were safe. The service had suitable policies and procedures about safeguarding. Staff had received suitable training about how to recognise and deal with any incidences of suspected abuse.

People had suitable risk assessments to assist in protecting them from harm. These were reviewed regularly. Restrictions at the service were kept to a minimum. The staff team had satisfactory understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Where necessary suitable action had been taken to safeguard people’s rights so they were not inappropriately restricted.

There were enough staff on duty. Suitable staff recruitment procedures were in place. Satisfactory checks such as references were obtained for new staff. Staff received appropriate training such as about health and safety, medicines management, and infection control.

The service had suitable medicines management systems, and these were operated appropriately. For example administration records were suitably kept, and medicines were stored securely.

The service was kept clean, and was well maintained. The building was appropriately adapted to meet people’s needs. There were plans to upgrade the premises in the near future. Health and safety checks (for example to check the fire system was working) were regularly completed and suitable records were kept.

There were suitable policies and procedures to assess people before they moved into the service. Comprehensive care planning systems were also in place and care plans were reviewed regularly.

People had enough food to eat, and were involved in shopping and preparing food. When people needed assistance with eating, or help with special diets, staff provided appropriate support.

The service had good links with external professionals such as GP’s, social workers, and speech and language therapists. People received necessary support from these services when they needed help. Appropriate records were kept of any appointments people attended.

Staff were seen as caring and respectful. Comments received included: “The staff have always been supportive and helpful,” and “The staff team appear friendly.” The care we observed was professional and supportive. Staff did not appear overly rushed, responded to people quickly if they needed support, and seemed kind and friendly.

People had the opportunity to participate in activities such as swimming, music, cooking and going on social outings. People also had access to day services.

The service had a suitable complaints procedure. Relatives we spoke with said they felt staff and management were approachable, would deal with any concerns appropriately, and did not feel they would face any repercussions if they made a complaint.

Management were viewed positively. The current manager had been in post since the beginning of 2017 and everyone we spoke with felt she had made positive changes to the service. The organisation had a clear management structure and there were clear lines of accountability. Staff said they worked well as a team. There were regular staff meetings, and senior staff were regularly present to give guidance and support. There were suitable policies and procedures to measure and where necessary improve the quality of the service.