The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Haringey Respite Service

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Flats 1 & 2 The Priory, 98 Priory Road, Haringey, N8 7HS (020) 7937 1166

Provided and run by:
Look Ahead Care and Support Limited

All Inspections

27 June 2015

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 27 June 2015.

Haringey Respite Service provides accommodation and care to people living in Haringey who have a learning disability. All the people using the service are young adults who live with their families and come to Haringey Respite Service for respite care, to give them and their relatives a break or when their usual carer is unable to provide their care. The service is registered as a care home. Two people can use the service for respite care at any time as it consists of two adjacent one bedroom flats in the same block of flats. On the day of this inspection there was one person using the service.

The previous inspection was in December 2014. At that inspection we found the service to be inadequate, with five breaches of regulations. We had concerns about safety of the premises, unsafe management of people’s medicines and their money, lack of training and supervision of staff and a lack of monitoring of the service by the provider. At this inspection we found there had been improvements in all these areas in the last six months.

There was no registered manager in the home. A registered manager is a person who is 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. The current manager started work in the service in December 2014 and had recently applied to be registered with the Care Quality Commission. The manager has been receiving support from senior managers in the organisation to make improvements to the service.

There was a minimum of one member of staff on duty for each person using the service and two staff where people needed more support. Although there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty they did not always know people’s needs well. A lack of continuity of staff could have a negative impact on the quality of the experience for people staying at the service. Families told us that they wanted there to be a consistent staff team who knew their relative’s needs as they had not always had this. The provider told us three new staff who worked in their other services would be moving to work in this service in July 2015 to provide more consistency so that people using the service did not have to be supported by staff they did not know.

The environment was generally safe. We found that the maintenance of the flats had improved following our last inspection and the provider had assessed the safety risks and taken action to improve safety for people.

The provider had improved the management of people’s medicines but the information held about their medicines was not up to date in all cases.

Families of people who used the service told us that their family member was happy to go to the service and were well looked after. Families and people using the service thought there had been improvements since the last inspection. Their comments included; “They always ask what they don’t know,” “I think they are trying,” “they listen to suggestions” “they are improving what we think was not right,” “there is nothing to worry about” and “They are back on track.” They thought staff were caring and had no complaints about the service provided.

Some people using the service had complex needs and therefore had difficulty communicating their needs. Since the last inspection staff have been provided with training in learning disability and autistic spectrum conditions and most staff had received basic training in Makaton sign language which a number of people using the service used as their preferred method of communication. At times agency and bank staff worked alone with people using the service and some of these staff may not have the necessary knowledge to communicate with every person using the service.

The provider was monitoring the quality of the service and assessing risks regularly to improve the service so that people received safe and good quality care.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 as the provider was not always providing a person centred service.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

29 December 2014

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 29 December 2014.

Haringey Respite Service provides accommodation and care to people living in Haringey who have a learning disability. All the people using the service were young adults who lived with their families and came to Haringey Respite Service for respite care, to give them and their relatives a break or when their usual carer was unable to provide their care. The service is registered as a care home. Two people can use the service for respite care at any time as it consists of two adjacent one bedroom flats in the same block of flats. At the time of this inspection there was one person using the service.

The previous inspection was in June 2013 when the service had recently opened. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the standards that we assessed.

There was no registered manager in the home. A registered manager is a person who is 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. The home has had two registered managers in the last year and a new manager started work in the service on 5 December 2014, two weeks before this inspection. There had also been three changes of area manager. There has been a lack of continuity of management which led to the service not being as well managed.

There was a minimum of one staff on duty for each person using the service and two staff where people needed more support. Although there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty they did not always know people’s needs well. A lack of continuity of staff could have a negative impact on the quality of the experience for people staying at the service. Relatives of the people who use the service were satisfied with some aspects of the service but one relative thought the service did not meet people’s social needs and another thought personal care could be improved. Three relatives wanted there to be a consistent staff team who knew their son or daughter’s needs as they had not always had this.

The environment was not safe. We found a number of maintenance issues which had not been addressed and risk assessments that had not been completed appropriately. The provider was also not carrying out effective health and safety checks in the service to help ensure people’s safety.

The provider was not managing people’s medicines safely. This was because the provider had not made arrangements for the safe recording and administration of people’s prescribed medicines.

Relatives of people who used the service told us that their family member was happy to go to the service and were well looked after. They thought staff were kind and caring. Staff supported them with personal care, to make their own meals if they were able to, and to go out and do the things they liked to do.

Some people using the service had difficulty communicating their needs. Staff did not have enough training in communicating with people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum condition.

The provider was not monitoring the quality of the service or assessing safety risks regularly to ensure people received safe and good quality care.

We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

10 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We inspected the service a few months after it first opened and it was still developing its approach to providing short breaks. Thirteen people had used the service at least once since it opened, usually at weekends.

We spoke to one person who used the service regularly who told us the staff were 'rather good'. We spoke to three family carers - two were very positive. One person said their relative 'keeps asking when [they] can go again.' The third person was concerned that the service had not been set up to deliver the type of care their relative needed, but we saw evidence that the service had listened to these concerns and was taking steps to address them. The service demonstrated learning from experience.

We saw that people's needs had been assessed and their support plans reflected these needs. The key documents in people's files were presented in an accessible way.

There were arrangements in place to ensure people brought their medication to the service in correctly labelled containers and that they returned home with any remainder at the end of their stay.

Staff were recruited in line with the provider's robust recruitment procedures, with evidence of all necessary checks being carried out before appointment. Staff benefitted from an induction programme.

The provider offered lots of opportunities for people to help shape its services and it routinely gathered feedback on people's experiences. One person told us about their involvement in such a scheme.