Archived: Heathside

Updated 5 May 2017

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 was 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 5 April 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by three inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is someone who has personal experience of caring for someone who uses this type of service.

Before the inspection we reviewed the evidence we had about the service. This included any notifications of significant events, such as serious injuries or safeguarding referrals. Notifications are information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We also reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR) submitted by the registered provider. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We did not note any concerns or risks that we needed to focus on in the PIR. We also contacted one health and social care professional.

During the inspection we spoke with 13 people, three relatives and a visitor. If people were unable to express themselves verbally, we observed the care they received and the interactions they had with staff. We spoke with twelve staff, including the manager and the provider’s district manager as well as one social care professional. We looked at the care records of nine people, including their assessments, care plans and risk assessments. We checked how medicines were managed and the records relating to this. We looked at four staff recruitment files and other records relating to staff support and training. We also checked records used to monitor the quality of the service, such as the provider’s own audits of different aspects of the service.

The last inspection of the service took place on 2 and 11 March 2016 where we identified concerns in relation to consent, staff recruitment, person-centred care and good governance.

Updated 5 May 2017

Heathside provides accommodation and personal care for up to 51 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. There were 41 people living at the service at the time of our inspection.

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 5 April 2017.

There was a manager in post who was going through the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The manager assisted us with our inspection.

We carried out an inspection to this home on 2 and 11 March 2016. At that inspection we found breaches in the regulations in relation to consent, recruitment, person-centred care and good governance. Following that inspection the registered provider sent us an action plan informing us of how they planned to address our concerns. We found at this inspection all areas had been addressed and things had improved immensely.

People were safe because there were enough staff on duty to meet their needs. Risks to people had been assessed and measures implemented to reduce these risks. Accidents and incidents were monitored and action taken to try to prevent reoccurrence. There were plans in place to ensure that people would continue to receive their care in the event of an emergency. Health and safety checks were carried out regularly and medicines were managed safely. The provider made appropriate checks on staff before they started work, which helped to ensure only suitable applicants were employed. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and were aware of the provider’s whistle-blowing policy.

People were supported by staff that had the skills and experience needed to provide effective care. Staff had induction training when they started work and ongoing refresher training in core areas. They had access to regular supervision, which provided opportunities to discuss their performance and training needs.

People were cared for by kind, attentive staff who clearly had a good relationship with people and the atmosphere in the home was calm and relaxed with staff speaking to people in a respectful yet friendly manner. Although some agency staff were used the manager endeavoured to use the same agency staff for consistency. Staff knew the needs of the people they supported and provided care in a consistent way. People were supported to stay healthy and to obtain medical treatment if they needed it. Relatives told us they felt welcomed into the home.

The manager and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People’s best interests had been considered when decisions that affected them were made and applications for DoLS authorisations had been submitted where restrictions were imposed upon people to keep them safe.

People enjoyed the food provided and could have alternatives to the menu if they wished. People’s nutritional needs had been assessed when they moved into the home and were kept under review. Staff ensured that people who required assistance to eat and drink received this support.

People had access to a range of activities within their individual unit and in the communal areas. Work was on-going to develop meaningful, creative and individualised activities for people recognising their preferred pastimes.

The manager provided good leadership in the home. Staff told us they felt supported by the manager and he had had a positive impact on Heathside. They felt involved in the running of the home as regular staff meetings were held. Relatives told us the service was well run and that the new manager was open and approachable. They said the he had always resolved any concerns they had. Staff said they worked well as a team to ensure people received the care they needed.

The provider had an effective quality assurance system to ensure that key areas of the service were monitored effectively. This included obtaining the views of people and relatives and using these views to make positive changes.