Salvete Care Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

The service was only receiving essential visitors at the time of our inspection. Any person entering the building had their temperature taken, completed a health questionnaire and wore full personal protective equipment (PPE) including a face visor.

People were supported by staff in full PPE, whether that person was COVID-19 positive or negative. This is called barrier nursing. This is to protect both staff and people living in the service from spreading infection.

The deputy manager told us that they changed systems within the service to reduce the spread of infection. Medicine rounds and personal care visits had been changed so that those people with a negative diagnosis of COVID-19 were all supported first, followed by those who were positive.

Additional risk measures had been put into place, for example cutlery and crockery used by people with a positive diagnosis were disposable and disposed into rubbish bags within the same room. Laundry used by people with a positive diagnosis were bagged in red bags and clearly marked in baskets so that domestic staff took extra precautions.

The building was clean and free from clutter. The deputy manager told us that the cleaning schedule was updated at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. This now included three hourly touch point cleaning, where all regularly touched areas, such as light switches and door handles, were disinfected.

A room had been designated to store all items coming into the service for 72 hours to prevent the spread of any infection entering the service. This included post and gifts delivered from relatives. All items were clearly marked with the date and time that they entered the room.

The deputy manager told us that they were working collaboratively with colleagues from the Local Authority and CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group), and were well supported as a result.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People using the service felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and they felt confident in how to report these types of concerns.

People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety, and balanced these against people’s rights to take risks and remain independent. Risk assessments for the environment were also carried out.

There were sufficient staff with the correct skill mix on duty to support people with their needs. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. Staff were not offered employment until satisfactory checks had been completed.

Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service. Effective infection control measures were in place to protect people.

People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people. Staff gained consent before supporting people. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff received an induction process and on-going training. They had attended a variety of training to ensure that they were able to provide care based on current best practice when supporting people. They were also supported with regular supervisions.

People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required to enable people to access a balanced diet. There was access to drinks and snacks throughout the day.

People were supported to access a variety of health professionals when required, including community nurses and doctors to make sure that people received additional healthcare to meet their needs.

Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times. Care plans were written in a person-centred way and were responsive to people’s needs. People were supported to follow their interests and join in activities.

People knew how to complain. There was a complaints procedure in place and accessible to all. Complaints had been responded to appropriately.

Quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We found that records relevant to the management of the service were accurate and fit for purpose. These were kept securely and updated when required.

People who used the service had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as possible.

People were supported by staff who were suitable for the work.

Is the service effective?

We observed that people appeared happy in their environment. One person told us, 'The foods good, the staff are good and it is nice and clean.'

There was an advocacy service available if people needed it, this meant that when people required additional support it was available

Is the service caring?

People were treated with respect by staff, who were responsive to their needs.

We observed the atmosphere to be relaxed and homely.

Is the service responsive?

Care plans were reviewed and updated on a regular basis to reflect the changing needs of people.

People were appropriately referred for assessment and treatment by other health and social care professionals.

Is the service well led?

The service had a registered manager in post, who was supported by a staff team and the provider.

Quality assurance processes were in place to ensure people received a quality service.

We spoke with nine of the 28 people, who all said they were very happy living there, and said they felt cared for. One person said, 'The staff are truly wonderful' and two other people independently said, 'The staff look after me well.' We also spoke with two people's relatives who said they were happy with the care provided, and felt their relative was in a 'safe place'.

During our inspection we saw evidence that people's nutritional requirements were assessed and managed in line with their needs, and that these were reviewed on a regular basis.

We spoke with a number of staff on duty who all told us they enjoyed working at Salvete Care Home. They said they felt supported by the manager and deputy manager, and they received appropriate training to fulfil their role. The records we looked at confirmed this.

We reviewed the systems in place for managing complaints should they arise, and saw that clear procedures provided guidance for people living in the home, relatives and staff. At the time of our visit, no complaints had been received for several years. In comparison, a number of compliments and thank you cards had been received.