Florence House Residential Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

Current government guidelines were being followed in relation to COVID-19 for staff and visitors to reduce the risk of infection to people living at the service. This included comprehensive checks being undertaken for visitors and staff on arrival and before being able to enter the service.

The provider maintained good levels of PPE and cleaning materials. Daily cleaning schedules were in place and included high touchpoint areas, such as door handles and bannisters. The provider had provided robotic cleaners that are put into action at night to assist in the cleaning of carpets and flooring throughout the service.

People and staff had received their vaccinations in line with government guidance.

The registered manager had contingency plans in place in the event of an outbreak.

We found the following examples of good practice.

Visitors could visit their family member/friend by appointment. They were asked to complete a rapid COVID-19 test, had their temperature checked and completed questions around COVID-19. End of life compassionate visits were also supported. Visitors wore personal protective equipment (PPE) that was provided and remained socially distanced. Staff helped people to use computer tablets to video call family and friends. This helped people stay in contact.

External visitors to the home, including health or social care professionals waited to enter. They then signed in, sanitised their hands and had their temperature checked. There may be a request to take a rapid COVID-19 test. Or disclose the result of their last COVID-19 PCR test. PPE would be made available if needed.

Emails, secure face book posts and telephone calls were used to update peoples named relative /advocates re COVID-19 restrictions, testing and vaccinations.

People isolated in their rooms for 14 days if they were a new admission to the home. Zoning plans had been used to zone people into different areas within the home, and staff worked within one zone whilst on shift.

Staff changed into their uniform and put on their PPE before starting work. Staff wore their PPE correctly. Staff were bare below the elbows and wore a minimum amount of jewellery, with long hair tied up. This promoted good infection control practice. There were two infection control leads within the home, to support staff.

The home looked visibly clean. Communal rooms were uncluttered to support effective cleaning. Windows were opened to promote good ventilation.

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

The provider (owner) acted as the manager and therefore there was no requirement for them to register with us.

Staff knew how to respond to possible abuse and how to reduce risks to people. There were enough staff who had been recruited properly to make sure they were suitable to work with people. Medicines were stored and administered safely.

People were cared for by staff who had received the appropriate training and had the skills and support to carry out their roles. Staff members understood and complied with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People received a choice of meals, which they liked, and staff supported them to eat and drink. They were referred to health care professionals as needed and staff followed the advice professionals gave them.

Staff were caring, kind and treated people with respect. People were listened to and were involved in their care and what they did on a day to day basis. People’s right to privacy was maintained by the actions and care given by staff members.

People’s personal and health care needs were met and care records guided staff in how to do this. There was a variety of activities for people to do and take part in during the day, and people had enough social stimulation. Complaints were investigated and responded to and people knew who to speak with if they had concerns.

Staff worked well together and felt supported by the management team. The monitoring process looked at systems throughout the home, identified issues and staff took the appropriate action to resolve these.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Below is a summary of what we found.

If you wish to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. Procedures in place to protect people from abuse or harm were robust and staff demonstrated an awareness of these. Care plans included detailed risk assessments and we saw examples of these being followed. One person told us, 'I feel very safe here. Staff come quickly when you pull the bell.'

Is the service effective?

Care plans were up to date and reflected people's current needs. There were enough staff to plan and deliver care in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Additionally, staff enjoyed their work and team working was strong.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We observed that people were relaxed and interacted well with staff. One person commented, 'Staff are very kind, they can't do enough for you.' Another said, 'The staff are extremely good and very friendly.'

Is the service responsive?

Senior staff were available to people and their relatives throughout the day. Staff were not rushed and spent quality time with people. Relatives and people who used the service told us that they were able to raise issues and concerns with staff

Is the service well led?

The provider had a quality assurance system in place and people were asked for their feedback about aspects of the service. One person told us, 'I am asked for my views. There is a survey now and then, and resident meetings.' There was evidence that the provider took action to improve the service when this was required.

On the day of our inspection there was a very relaxed, homely atmosphere at the home, with people who lived there and the staff getting on well and enjoying each other's company. Staff treated people with respect and supported them to remain as independent as possible.

Care records were personalised and gave staff clear guidance on meeting each person's individual needs. Potential risks to people had been assessed and plans put in place to minimise the risks. Medicines were managed well.

The provider had a recruitment procedure in place to ensure that staff employed were suitable to work at the home. People told us they knew how to complain, but had never had to.

Record keeping had improved since our last inspection. Records were now maintained well: those we looked at were accurate, relevant and up to date.