Archived: Falcon House

Updated 25 February 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 checked 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 was a comprehensive inspection which means we looked at all of the fundamental standards of care.

We inspected Falcon House on the 30 January 2017 and the inspection was unannounced. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed previous reports and notifications that are held on the CQC database. Notifications are important events that the service has to let the CQC know about by law. The provider also completed a Provider Information Return (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 four people who used the service, two members of support staff, the registered manager and provider.

We reviewed two people’s care plans and care records. We looked at the service’s staff support records for three members of staff to check whether they were recruited safely. We also looked at the service’s arrangements for the management of medicines and the quality monitoring system and auditing of the service.

Updated 25 February 2017

Falcon House provides accommodation and support for up to four persons who have enduring mental health needs. Communal rooms are situated on the ground floor, there is also a designated smoking area and safe access to a communal garden.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good as Falcon House met all relevant fundamental standards of care.

The service was safe. Staff received regular refresher training for safeguarding vulnerable people and demonstrated good knowledge of how to keep people safe. Robust recruitment procedures ensured staff suitability for their role and appropriate checks were completed. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs within the service and out in the community. People’s individual needs were assessed, risks were identified and minimised with effective support plans in place. Medicines were stored, administered and managed safely.

The service was effective. Staff had adequate training and supervisions to ensure people were supported and their needs were effectively met. The registered manager and staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to support people’s independence and to have maximum choice and control of their lives. People were provided information enabling them to choose healthy lifestyles and supported to maintain these lifestyles. Health care professionals were liaised with in order to manage people’s change in physical and mental health needs.

The service was caring. Staff were friendly and patient towards people and positive relationships had been created within Falcon House. Staff understood people and their personal preferences. People told us and we saw that privacy and dignity was respected.

The service was responsive. People were involved in the planning of their support for continued wellbeing. People chose and were supported to undertake activities to improve their health, creativity and language skills. Work placement opportunities had also been applied for which people successfully volunteered for. Complaints procedures were in place and made readily available to people.

The service was well led. Views of the quality of the service were sought from people, relative’s and health professionals. The registered manager felt supported by the provider and in turn staff felt supported by the registered manager, which displayed good leadership. The registered manager had a visible presence within the service and people, relatives and staff used the open door policy effectively. The quality monitoring of the service was robust and the provider was responsive to feedback from authorities to drive improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.