Archived: Shore House

Updated 15 January 2019

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 December 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection we checked information that we held about the home and the service provider. This included information from other agencies and statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we spoke with four people. We spoke with three support workers, a senior support worker, the registered manager and the provider’s senior manager for mental health services. We received feedback from the commissioning CCG who gave us permission to include their comments in this report.

We looked at the care plans and associated records for four people. We reviewed other records, including the provider’s internal checks and audits, staff rotas, accidents, incidents and records of medicines administered to people. We looked at the training and supervision records for support workers.

Updated 15 January 2019

The inspection took place on 5 December 2018 and was unannounced. The previous inspection took place on 6 and 10 May 2016 when the service was rated as ‘Good.’

Shore House is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to 20 people who have needs associated with mental health and/or alcohol and substance misuse. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service aims to assist individuals with mental health needs in their recovery and move on to more independent living opportunities. The service accepts referrals for people who are already living in the community, as well as people who are inpatients at the time of referral. The service has been jointly commissioned by Brighton and Hove NHS and Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and Brighton and Hove local authority.

The service is situated on the sea front in the centre of Brighton and is near a range of facilities. Accommodation consists of 20 independent living units. Four of these were self- contained flats with a kitchen, bathroom and bedroom. Four flats had a bedroom and kitchen and the remainder did not have a bathroom or kitchen. There were several communal lounges and kitchens for people to use.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

We have made two recommendations in the report regarding ongoing monitoring and assessment of risks to people.

Radiators were not covered or assessments carried out to ensure people were protected from hot surface temperatures. Risks to people were assessed but these were not always recorded. This included people’s ability to safely prepare and cook food as well as any risks of fire where people smoked in their rooms. We have made a recommendation about this.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the service. Staff also attended multi - agency planning meetings called the Care Programme Approach (CPA), which are coordinated by the referring mental health services. We noted copies of the CPA meeting decisions were not held with people’s care records so the provider would have all relevant information about people’s needs. We have made a recommendation about this.

People said they felt safe at the home. Support workers had a good awareness of the principles and procedures for safeguarding people in their care.

Sufficient numbers of support workers were employed to ensure people got the support they needed.

Medicines were safely managed.

There were systems to review people’s care and when incidents or accidents had occurred.

Support workers well trained in the methods used by the service to support people to develop their independence and recovery from mental illness and substance misuse, which was a system called the Outcome Star. This assessed people’s abilities to live independently and to progress to being more independent. Staff said they felt supported in their work. People said the support workers were helpful and supported them to be develop their independence. There were arrangements in place to support people to maintain and develop skills in meal preparation. The provider and support workers worked with local health care services to ensure people go the right health care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The ethos of the service was focussed on promoting people’s rights to live independently and to treat people equally irrespective of their needs or disability. People described the support workers as caring and approachable. People were consulted and involved in decisions about their care and support. People’s privacy and choice was promoted.

People received support which was individualised to meet their assessed needs. As part of the service’s aims and objectives, people were supported with a range of activities to develop independence and for supporting them to manage their mental health. The provider had a complaints procedure and people said they were able to raise any issues if they needed to. There have been no complaints made to the provider.

There were systems to check and audit the quality of the service provided which included seeking the views of people. The provider was forward looking and worked with local community and hospital mental health services to provide a service which met the aims of mental health care services in the Brighton area. Local health care commissioners told us, “It is a responsive service that will work closely with commissioners to respond to local challenges and to continuing service improvement.”