Herons Lea Residential Home Limited

We found the following examples of good practice.

Staff had ongoing training in infection control and effective use of personal protective equipment (PPE). They had an accessible file within the managers office to refer to with all policies and the latest up to date guidance on testing, visiting and rules in relation to being positive for COVID-19.

There were clear guidelines and checklists to ensure cleaning was completed to a high standard. This included touch points: we have asked the provider to consider ensuring recording shows touch points are cleaned more than once a day.

The service had followed government guidelines in respect of visiting. People told us they had been able to see their relatives. One said “They (staff) are very caring and have done a marvellous job keeping us all safe.” We spoke with two relative who confirmed processes were in line with government guidelines. One relative said “They are very diligent with testing and keeping us to the visit times, but this is for the resident's protection and we fully understand.”

Staff were seen to wear PPE at all times and people relatives said their observations were that staff wore masks at all times. We observed some staff were not bare below the elbow, they had watches on. We asked the registered provider to remind staff about best practice to ensure thorough hand hygiene can be maintained.

The service had developed a good testing regime for people, staff and visitors. They had a record of all staffs vaccinations to show they were compliant with this being a condition of employment. Similarly, they had a process in place to check any visiting professionals had been vaccinated and were testing for COVID-19. They had a very clear and easy read sign on the entrance door to explain what to expect if you were visiting.

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 on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. The key question of caring has been rated as outstanding at this inspection. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

.

Why the service is rated as good.

People said they enjoyed living at Herons Lea and felt safe and well cared for. Comments included

“It's very good. It was difficult at first being independent. I find it very satisfactory - the carers have a lot of compassion and are a happy bunch, very caring. I just accept their way of doing things now. They know what they're doing and I trust them - they're very helpful” and “I think it's one of the best places we've got around here. I kept falling over and I didn't like my [daughter] getting upset when I fell down stairs and in the shower room it was awful. I miss home but I'm safe here.”

People were supported to maintain their independence and live fulfilling lives doing the things they enjoyed and being encouraged to try new things.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

Staff were exceptionally caring and knowledgeable about people’s needs, wishes and preferred routines. This helped them to plan personalised care. People, their families and visiting healthcare professionals were positive about the caring and compassionate nature of staff.

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.

Care and support was person centred and well planned. Staff had good training and support to do their job safely and effectively.

Risk assessments were in place for each person. These identified the correct action to take to reduce the risk as much as possible in the least restrictive way. People received their medicines safely and on time. Accidents and incidents were carefully monitored, analysed and reported upon.

There were effective staff recruitment and selection processes in place. People received effective care and support from staff who were well trained and competent.

Quality assurance processes and audits helped to ensure that the quality of care and support as well as the environment was closely monitored. This included seeking the views of people and their relatives.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

We contacted the registered manager in the July to ensure they were on track. We returned on the 12 November 2013 to review the progress that had been made and to ensure the changes agreed by the action plan had been achieved and put in place.

On the day we visited we were advised that there were 20 people living in the home. We reviewed nine records kept by the home that included people's care plan (the detail of how they wanted or needed to have their personal care needs met), daily records and logs of people's care for those who were poorly and required a higher level of care and support. We did not speak to people who lived in the home or family. We did however speak to the registered manager for the first half hour and a senior carer after that during our visit. We could also hear and observed how staff communicated with people.

We found that people's consent to care and treatment were in place and the records of people's care plans were up to date and reflected people's current needs.

A relative told us, 'Its wonderful here' and 'I wouldn't have X anywhere else'.

As part of our inspection we also spoke and met with the registered provider, the registered manager, care staff, a member of the housekeeping staff, and the chef.

During our inspection, we observed all staff interacting with people in a kind, compassionate, supportive and appropriate manner.

We found, people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work and there was an effective complaints system available.

Where people did not have the capacity to consent; the provider did not always act in accordance with legal requirements. We also found people were not fully protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not always maintained.