Archived: Harrisons Yard

Updated 26 November 2016

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 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 21 October 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

We reviewed previous inspection reports and the Provider Information Record (PIR). This 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 spoke with both people using the service to obtain their views about what it was like living at Harrisons Yard.

We looked at records in relation to one person’s care. We spoke with two staff, one was a bank support worker, the other was an activities coordinator. We also spoke with the manager and the director of nursing for Partnerships in Care Limited. We looked at records relating to the management of risk, minutes of meetings, staff recruitment and training and systems for monitoring the quality of the service.

Updated 26 November 2016

Harrisons Yard is registered to provide accommodation for up to three people who personal care. The service provides care and support for people with a learning disability. Two people were living at the service on the day of our inspection.

We inspected this service on 21 October 2016. The inspection was unannounced.

Although there was a manager in post, they had not yet made an application to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to become the registered manager. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Systems were in place to manage risks to people using the service. This included environmental risks, safeguarding matters, behaviours that were challenging to others and supporting people to manage their own medicines. These safeguards protected people from harm, or risk of harm occurring.

Detailed risk assessments were in place which gave staff clear direction as to what action to take to minimise risk. Risks were assessed in a consistent and positive way and protected people’s dignity, rights and independence. This showed that the provider had a positive attitude towards managing risk and keeping people safe.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These safeguards protect the rights of adults who use the service by ensuring that if there are restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed by professionals who consider whether the restriction is appropriate and needed. The manager had made an appropriate DoLS application to the local authority to ensure that restrictions on a person’s ability to leave the service unaccompanied were lawful.

There was a sufficient number of staff on duty to meet people’s needs and to keep them safe. The provider’s recruitment and selection process ensured staff recruited had the right skills and experience. Regular police checks were carried out to ensure staff were suitable to work with people who used the service.

New staff received a thorough induction when they started work which gave them the skills, knowledge and confidence to carry out their role. All staff received training that gave them the skills to meet people’s specific needs.

Staff knew the needs of the people they supported well. People were involved in determining the level of support they needed and their independence was promoted. Staff offered people choices, for example, how they spent their day and what they wanted to eat. These choices were respected. People were supported to carry on with their usual routines, going to work, shopping and accessing places of interest in the community.

People were provided with sufficient food and drink of their choice to stay healthy and were encouraged to maintain a balanced diet. People were supported to manage their own health and to access health care professionals, when they needed them.

There was a strong emphasis on promoting good practice in the service. Staff were clear about the vision and values of the service in relation to valuing people, caring, working together and treating people with respect. We observed staff putting these values into practice during our inspection.

The provider had a range of systems in place to assess, monitor and further develop the quality of the service. This included quality monitoring visits of the service and monitoring of incidents, accidents, safeguarding concerns and complaints.