Healey House

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’. This guidance supported judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choice, independence and access to local communities that most people take for granted.

The service had a positive approach to managing and responding to incidents, and staff had a good understanding of safeguarding. Person-centred transitions were carried out safely when people moved into the service. There was extremely robust information about risks to people and clear strategies to help staff prevent and respond to behaviours that communicated a need, emotion or distress. Good systems and processes meant the environment was safe, clean and hygienic. The appropriate recruitment checks were in place and staff received an in-depth induction before working with people. Medicines were managed safely and the service worked very proactively to involve people and relatives in decisions about treatments, and plan for any changes.

Care plans were very detailed and included information about what was important to people, and the different levels of support they needed at different times. People had enough to eat and drink and risks relating to eating and drinking were well managed. There was good communication sharing amongst the team, and with health and social care partners. The service was very proactive at responding to changes in people’s health and wellbeing, and people were consulted when health related decisions were being made about them. Monitoring was robust and used to help improve the effectiveness of people’s care and treatment, and there was evidence of several really positive outcomes. There were excellent systems in place to ensure the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were followed.

Staff were extremely kind, and provided compassionate care when people had a bereavement or were going through a difficult time. A lot of staff had worked at the service for a number of years; meaning they knew people very well, understood their needs and preferences, and could respond quickly to signs of pain or distress. The service proactively supported people to maintain links with friends and relatives, and enjoy a meaningful and fulfilled life. Staff had access to support if they were struggling at work and were provided with wellbeing resources.

The provider ensured people received truly person-centred care which was responsive when there were changes to people’s needs. There was good continuity of care and staff worked collaboratively with relatives and other services. The service understood and met people’s communication needs. Managers and staff were proactive at seeking feedback from people, or encouraging them to share new ideas. The service was accessible to people with a range of mobility needs, and support was offered flexibly. Managers and staff had an excellent understanding of discrimination and worked hard to advocate for people and overcome barriers to care. Plans were made for people with long term health conditions, to help them prepare for the future.

There was a clear vision and positive culture at the service which actively involved people and focused on high-quality care. Managers were knowledgeable, experienced and led by example. Staff felt supported, well treated and able to speak up about concerns. A variety of robust checks and audits helped ensure good oversight and findings were consistently used to drive improvement. The service had strong links within the local community which helped ensure people had access to a variety of opportunities and an excellent quality of life. Learning was prioritised, with managers being open, transparent and keen to continuously improve.