We carried out a review of the data available to us about Percy House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Percy House, you can give feedback on this service.
Percy House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 18 people who have mental health needs. At the time of the inspection there were 18 people living at the home. The provider also operates an outreach support service from the same premises which is not regulated by CQC.
The home has been adapted from terraced houses in a residential area.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People said the service was extremely caring. The service was run by a family and people said the providers made them feel valued and cherished like part of their family. People said the service had an immense impact on their ability to rebuild relationships with their own family and friends.
Health and social care professionals told us staff were exceptionally kind, caring and compassionate. The service was exemplary at helping people achieve positive outcomes, building confidence and independence to better manage their mental health.
People and care professionals said their mental, emotional and physical well-being had significantly benefited by living at the home. Several people had previously used long-stay hospitals but at Percy House they could live successful lives as citizens of their local community.
The provider created a caring, accepting environment where people’s well-being and individuality was at the heart of the service. The provider was creative and innovative at looking for ways to meet individual needs.
People had capacity to make all their own decisions. This was respected by the provider and staff.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff assisted them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service upheld this practice.
Staff were well trained and well supported. The provider was very supportive of people and constantly considered how they could enhance the service.
People and staff praised the culture of the management and staff team. They were all committed to providing high quality, person-centred support for people to be able to live positive lifestyles.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 15 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Percy House is a family run care home in a residential area of Blyth, Northumberland. The service provides accommodation and support for up to 18 people who have mental health needs. At the time of the inspection there were 18 people living at the home. The provider also offers an outreach support service from the same premises. This service is not regulated by CQC.
The home had a registered manager who had been registered since October 2014. 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.
The provider’s nominated individual was also located at the home and was involved in the direct day to day management of the home and services. A nominated individual is a senior person within the organisation that the CQC would have contact with when raising issues with the provider organisation. People we spoke with who used the service used the term ‘manager’ to mean both the registered manager and the nominated individual.
People told us they felt the home was a safe place to live. Staff were aware of safeguarding issues, had undertaken training in the area and told us they would report any concerns of potential abuse. The premises were effectively maintained and safety checks undertaken on a regular basis, including checks with regard to fire safety. We noted no formal assessments had been undertaken for legionella or asbestos at the home. The registered manager took immediate steps to address this issue and later confirmed the matters had been addressed.
Appropriate staffing levels were maintained to support the needs of people living at the home. Appropriate recruitment procedures and checks were in place to ensure staff employed at the home had the correct skills and experience. Medicines were managed and administered safely and effectively.
People told us they enjoyed access to adequate food and drink and we observed this to be true. Kitchen staff had a good understanding of people’s dietary likes and dislikes. Staff said they were able to access the training they required and records confirmed mandatory training was up to date. Staff told us, and records confirmed there were regular supervision sessions and that they had an annual appraisal.
The registered manager and nominated individual and other staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. No one currently living at the home had any restrictions in place linked to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. All the people living at the home had capacity to consent and make decisions.
People had access to health care professionals to help maintain their wellbeing and had been provided with an annual health check. Decoration around the home was generally good and there was a homely feel to the building.
People and professionals we spoke with told us they felt the care was extremely good, highly personal and responsive to people’s needs. Questionnaire responses from people living at the home rated the service highly. We observed excellent relationships between people and staff. Staff demonstrated a genuine interest in people as individuals and were approachable and empathetic.
People were treated with dignity and respect. A ‘residents’ meeting’ took place every month to ensure people were involved in determining their care. People and professionals spoke glowingly about the range of opportunities to participate in activities. Professionals said the management ‘went the extra mile’ to accommodate particular interests.
People had individualised care plans that addressed their identified needs. Reviews of care needs involved individuals and there was evidence they had participated. People told us they had no reason to complain about the service. No formal complaints had been received in the previous 12 months. People and professionals said the management were responsive to any concerns.
The registered manager and nominated individual showed us records confirming regular checks and audits were carried out at the home. People, staff and professionals were exceedingly positive about the leadership of the home and felt the management were dedicated and had a good understanding of people’s needs. The provider was meeting legal requirements in relation to notifying the CQC of events and displaying their current quality rating. Records were detailed and up to date.
This inspection took place on 19 and 21 October 2014 and was announced. A previous inspection undertaken on 18 October 2013 found there were no breaches of legal requirements.
Percy House is registered to provide accommodation for up to 17 people who have a learning disability or mental health issues. At the time of the inspection there were 17 people using the service.
The home had a registered manager in place. 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.
We saw there were procedures in place to keep people safe. Staff understood what action to take if abuse was suspected and how to report it. Staff had a good knowledge of how to recognise abuse and they demonstrated a good knowledge of whistleblowing procedures.
There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs and staff were suitably qualified and experienced for their role. Staff received the correct training for their role. There were effective recruitment procedures in place and suitable checks were completed before staff started working at the service.
The service had a system in place that managed people’s medicines safely. Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of correctly.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. DoLS are part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They aim to make sure that people are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. Mental capacity assessments were in place for each person and best interests meetings were held to ensure that all actions taken were in the best interests of people in line with legislation.
People were happy with the food provided by the service. We saw people had a choice of what they wanted to eat and where people needed a special diet this was provided. Staff knew people well and had a good understanding of their needs. They were respectful to people and were patient when supporting them. We saw staff enabled people to make decisions for themselves whenever possible. People’s wellbeing was monitored and people were supported to access support from healthcare professionals, such as, general practitioners.
People’s care was assessed and they had individual care and activities plans based on their needs, likes and dislikes. People chose what activities they wished to engage in and when they liked to do them. People were supported to access the local community. There was a complaints procedure in place and people were provided with a copy in case they had any concerns about the service. The service took complaints seriously and responded to them quickly. There was a system in place to record complaints and any action taken to resolve them.
Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff spoke with people as equals and communicated well with them. They involved people in their care and explained the choices available to them. We saw staff had received training in equality and diversity and worked hard to preserve people’s rights.
The registered manager monitored the quality of care. Surveys were carried out to obtain the views of people who lived at the service. Audits were also carried out for areas such as health and safety, infection control and fire safety. We saw staff views were obtained during individual one to one supervisions and staff meetings. Meetings were held for people who used the service and staff. Records were well maintained and were stored securely. Staff felt supported in their role and listened to by the registered provider and the registered manager. Staff had a good relationship with people who used the service and staff the registered provider promoted a positive culture of care within the service.
We also spoke with an independent mental health advocate, a community psychiatric nurse, a social worker and a learning and development officer from Northumbria Healthcare. They too were complimentary about the service.
Before people received any care or treatment, they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.
People described the care and support at the home as 'excellent.' We found that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.
People described Percy House as 'homely' and felt that the environment met their needs. We considered that the provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained.
People were also extremely complimentary about the staff themselves. One person informed us, 'Everyone is so caring here.' We concluded that there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.
People were made aware of the complaints system and this was provided in a format that met their needs.
They confirmed they were given choices in life and staff supported them to take some risks and be independent.
People we spoke with said, "I am really happy" , "I have lived here for a long time and have seen how things have improved" and "it is a nice place to live".
People said they could receive medical and specialist attention when they
needed it and were helped to fulfil their social needs within the home and community.
People we spoke with said "I am busy and enjoy getting out and about", " I can follow my interests and staff are supportive" and "This is my home and has been for many years".
People told us their home was clean, comfortable and warm. They said "I like my room and it has everything I need" and "there have been so many good changes it has been brought up to date".
They said staff were kind and caring and seemed to be well trained. People confirmed they were given the opportunity to comment on the service, change routine or raise complaints. They said their visitors were made to feel welcome and information sharing was good.