Northlands Village Rest Home

The registered manager had established effective infection prevention and control procedures which were understood and followed by the staff. The registered manager had introduced a screening process for visitors when entering the building, which included health and temperature checks as well as the provision of personal protective equipment (PPE) and lateral flow device testing for COVID-19.

Admission to the home was completed in line with COVID-19 guidance. People were only admitted following a negative COVID-19 test result and supported to self-isolate for up to 14 days following admission to reduce the risk of introducing infection. People’s health and well-being was carefully monitored during this time.

There were plentiful supplies of PPE and stocks were carefully monitored. Staff had been trained in infection control practices and posters were displayed throughout the home to reinforce procedures. We observed staff were using PPE appropriately. There were sufficient staff to provide continuity of support should there be a staff shortage.

The layout of the service and the communal areas were suitable to support social distancing. The premises had a good level of cleanliness and was hygienic throughout. Housekeeping and care staff were following an enhanced cleaning schedule and there was good ventilation. The atmosphere of the home was calm and peaceful, and we observed staff were attending to people’s needs.

The provider’s infection prevention and control policies and procedures were up to date and audits had been carried out on a regular basis.

Northlands Village Rest Home is a residential care home providing personal care to 14 older people at the time of the inspection. The service is provided from a large adapted domestic-style property, with several communal areas and provides people with their own private bedrooms. The service can support up to 16 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We have made a recommendation about ensuring the wealth of knowledge staffed possessed about people and their care is recorded sufficiently to guide staff. The service put people at the centre of the care they received. Staff used detailed assessments to identify people’s needs and preferences and worked to ensure people were happy with the care they received. If people were not happy, they were confident they could speak with staff to make improvements.

People received safe care. The provider had systems to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff assessed and managed risks to people to help keep them safe. Staff managed people’s medicines safely and kept the home clean and hygienic.

People were cared for by staff who were well supported and had the right skills and knowledge to meet their needs effectively, following good practice guidance. Staff supported people with their healthcare needs and worked well with external healthcare professionals. The service met people’s nutritional needs and worked with them to make sure food provision also reflected their preferences. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated well, with kindness and compassion by staff who respected their privacy and dignity and promoted inclusion. The service supported people to be independent. We received positive feedback about the caring approach of staff. The service made sure people were supported to communicate and planned activities to enhance people’s wellbeing.

The service was led by an established registered manager who people felt was approachable and caring. People felt the care they received was of a good standard and liked living at the home. The culture was open and inclusive. The registered manager understood their responsibilities and monitored the quality of the service using a range of systems. Where areas for improvement were identified, the registered manager involved people who used the service and staff to shape improvements.

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 17 May 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.

At the last inspection on 10 September 2015, we found one breach of regulatory requirements related to recruitment of staff. At that time we judged the service did not have effective recruitment practices to ensure staff were appropriately checked to make sure they were safe to work with vulnerable people. Following our inspection, the provider sent us an action plan which told us how they planned to make improvements. During this inspection we checked to see what improvements had been made and found the provider had reviewed their recruitment practices to ensure they were robust.

Northlands Village Rest Home provides accommodation for up to 16 older people who require 24 hour support with personal care. Respite care is provided subject to availability. The home is a large converted house with a secluded rear garden. There is a passenger lift to bedrooms on the upper floor. The home is situated in a residential area of Great Eccleston, close to local amenities. At the time of our inspection visit there were 16 people who lived at the home.

There was 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 looked at the recruitment of three recently appointed staff members. We found appropriate checks had been undertaken before they had commenced their employment confirming they were safe to work with vulnerable people.

Staff spoken with and records seen confirmed a structured induction training and development programme was in place. Staff received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs. We found staff were knowledgeable about the support needs of people in their care.

We found the registered manager had systems to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

The environment was maintained, clean and hygienic when we visited. People we spoke with all said they were happy with the standard of cleanliness and hygiene at the home.

We found sufficient staffing levels were in place to provide support people required. We saw staff members could undertake tasks supporting people without feeling rushed. Staff confirmed there were always enough staff on duty to ensure peoples’ needs were met.

We found medication procedures at the home were safe. Staff responsible for the administration of medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. The provider had safe systems in place with regard to storage of medicines.

People told us they were happy with the variety and choice of meals provided. We saw regular snacks and drinks were provided between meals to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration.

People told us they enjoyed the activities organised by the service. These were arranged both individually and in groups.

The service had a complaints procedure which was made available to people on their admission to the home. People we spoke with told us they were happy and had no complaints.

Care plans were organised and had identified the care and support people required. We found they were informative about care people had received. They had been kept under review and updated when necessary to reflect people’s changing needs.

We found people had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met. A visiting healthcare professional told us communication between them and staff was good and they were impressed with staff knowledge about people’s care needs.

We observed staff supporting people with their care during the inspection visit. We saw they were kind, caring, patient and attentive.

The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included satisfaction surveys and care reviews. We found people were satisfied with the service they received.

The design, layout and security of the premises was fit for purpose to meet the needs of the people living in the home. The design and layout of the building meant that people's dignity and wellbeing could be promoted effectively.

We found evidence that there was an effective recruitment process in place and found policies to back the process up. People living at the home spoke highly of the management and care staff, as did relatives and visiting professionals.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health and safety of people using the service and others.

We observed that staff interaction with people was very good. Staff engaged with them in conversations. They spoke to them respectfully, communicated well and appropriately, and offered assistance when needed. It was evidenced that where possible independence was promoted. People requiring assistance to eat was given this with dignity and patience.

People told us they were given the help and support they needed. They said staff was, 'Lovely', 'Go the extra yard', "Very good" and "Helpful.

We observed people in the home were relaxed around staff. They were able to express themselves freely and openly. People who were able to express themselves told us staff treated them well and they had no cause for concern. There were no rules to follow and no rigid routines.

We observed how people engaged with staff in various activities of daily living. Staff was always present around people and available to offer assistance when needed.