3L Care Limited

We found the following examples of good practice.

There were robust policies, procedures and good practices in place to manage risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic which were regularly reviewed and updated following any changes in national guidance. These included the management of people with a COVID-19 positive diagnosis, staffing, admissions of people to the home, visitors and PPE.

People living in the home and their family were supported to maintain contact. This included designated essential carers. Residents had a contact and visitors plan in place. Visiting was easily accessible. In the event of COVID-19 visit restrictions people were supported to maintain contact by the telephone and video calls. Relatives of people coming to the end of their lives would be supported to visit safely. People would be admitted safely and in accordance with national guidelines to the home from the community or from hospital.

The home had good supplies of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for staff and visitors to use. Hand sanitiser was readily available throughout the service. Staff had received updated training on the use of PPE, and we observed staff wearing it correctly during our inspection. Clear signage, information and personal support was in place throughout the home to remind and educate staff and visitors of their responsibilities.

A programme of regular COVID-19 testing for people in the home, staff, visiting carers and professional/contracted visitors to the home was implemented. All visitors, including visiting professionals were subject to a range of screening procedures, including showing evidence of vaccination and a negative lateral flow test before entry into the home was allowed. However this was not fully documented. The provider was signposted to guidance and assured us they would implement full documentation straight away.The provider was meeting Covid-19 vaccination requirements for staff, residents and visitors.

The home appeared clean and hygienic throughout. Communal areas and bedrooms were spacious and airy. Daily cleaning schedules were implemented by housekeepers. These have been reviewed and enhanced. All staff were involved in undertaking extra cleaning throughout the day and night.

Staff and management were well supported to be resilient and manage IPC risks effectively.

At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The service provides a mixture of permanent accommodation and respite support for up to ten people with complex needs, including physical and learning disabilities. Respite can be used as a short period of support for people away from their own homes, for the purpose of carer relief or rehabilitation. The service contains single bedrooms which are located on the first floor together with four bathrooms. Other facilities include a cinema room, an activities room, a quiet sensory room, and a garden. At the time of the inspection there were eight people living in the home.

The service had a registered manager in post who was also the provider. 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 spoke with one person who lived in the home and one relative of a person who lived in the home and both gave positive feedback about the home and the staff who worked in it.

Staff spoken with and records seen confirmed training had been provided to enable them to support the people with their specific needs. The service provided care to people who had very complex needs and needed specialist support. We found that staff were knowledgeable about the support needs of people in their care. We observed staff providing support to people throughout our inspection visit and observed warm, positive relationships.

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. We did find one medication cupboard unlocked but this was rectified at the inspection.

The management team 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. We saw that people were supported to make their own decisions and their choices were respected. We asked that the audit trails around these decisions be improved and this was being actioned during the inspection.

Care plans were person-centred and driven by the people who lived who lived in the home. We saw clear one sheet profiles that gave clear information about the most important aspects of their care for that person. They detailed how people wished and needed to be cared for. They were regularly reviewed and updated as required. We saw that the home tried hard to enable people to engage in making decisions about their lives no matter how small the decision.

The provider and the management team used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included regular audits of the service and staff meetings to seek the views of staff about the service. The staff team were consistent and long standing. They demonstrated that they were committed to providing the best care possible for the people living in the home.

People's needs were assessed before admission and they were given a contract that identified the service they would receive and how much it would cost.

People were happy with the care provided. One relative said the home could not do enough for both her and the person who used the service. A representative from the clinical commissioning group confirmed that the person they funded had been assessed by the home manager before admission and when they visited after admission the person seemed settled and well cared for.

People were given their medicines as prescribed by their doctor and were helped to access other health and social care services that might help them.

There was an accessible complaints procedure in place and complaints were investigated and acted upon.