Bunyan Lodge

We found the following examples of good practice.

• The service booked visits for families and friends and staggered the times of visits to reduce the risk of

infection transmission between people. Visitors had their temperature taken before entering and provided their contact details for test and trace purposes. Visitors were given Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), including hand sanitiser and face masks, which they had to wear throughout their visit. The home used video calls to make sure people had regular contact with their families and friends.

• Staff were allocated to work in specific shifts, with specific colleagues to reduce the risk of spreading

infection.

• The service had an infection prevention and control process in place. The provider was regularly testing

people and staff for COVID-19, in accordance with government guidance.

• The provider supported people and staff to stay safe. Staff had been trained in infection prevention control. Additional measures had been introduced to clean the service and make sure the risk to people and staff was reduced. Staff had individual COVID-19 risk assessments. The provider's infection prevention and control policy and business contingency plan had been updated to include pandemic flu or contagious outbreak.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Bunyan Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one CQC contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At our last inspection in November 2015, we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support an overall 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.

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 training and felt supported to deliver care and support to people in a safe and effective way. People`s medicines were managed safely by trained staff.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. People and staff were knowledgeable about how to report their concerns and how to keep safe from harm. Employment processes were robust and ensured that staff working at the service were suitable to carry out their roles.

People told us staff were kind and caring and their dignity was protected. People had been involved in planning and reviewing their care and support.

Support plans were personalised and descriptive of how people liked to be supported by staff. People`s independence was promoted and staff encouraged people to express their choices and live the life they wanted.

People had been enabled to pursue their hobbies and interests. They were involved in planning their activities and the registered manager was working to further develop possibilities and look for further opportunities for people in regard to going on holidays and other activities.

People were supported to access health services including their GP, dental appointments and other healthcare professionals as required. People`s feedback on the service was encouraged through regular meetings and surveys.

Quality monitoring procedures were in place and action was taken where improvements were identified. There were clear management arrangements in place.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We spoke with four people about their experience of living at the home and the care and support they were offered. People told us they were happy living at the home and felt safe in the environment and with the care they were given. One person said, "It seems as though nothing is too much trouble for staff." Another said, "I can do so much more now I am here."

Some of the people were unable to express their views directly because of complex communication problems so we observed engagement between them and staff. It was evident that staff interacted positively with people and respected individual needs and abilities. We saw that people were encouraged to remain independent and were offered choices as to how they spent their free time.

It was evident from our discussions and observations that Bunyan Lodge was considered as home. We noted the staff were considerate of this when helping people. One example being that staff knocked before entering individuals' rooms, this showed that people's dignity and respect was valued.

We observed evidence of effective record keeping and robust recruitment processes and were given free access to all information we required as part of this inspection.

We observed staff interacting well with people and people being encouraged to maintain their independence.

At the time of our visit, there were 16 people living at Bunyan Lodge, although a number of people were out at the local day resource centre.