Magdalene House

We found the following examples of good practice.

The provider and registered manager had comprehensive processes to minimise the risk to people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection. These included weekly testing of staff, and a specially created 'socially-distanced pod' in the garden area so that visitors could visit their loved ones safely. Sanitiser and PPE were available throughout the home. There were signs in the home to promote the use of PPE and regular use of hand sanitisers.

Infection control policy and people's risk assessments had been completed and revised following the pandemic so that people were protected in the event of becoming unwell or in the event of a covid 19 outbreak in the home. On one admission to the home, the registered manager insisted that the person was tested before admission into the home and another had to be isolated in line with Public Health England guidance. There was innovative use of social media and electronic tablets to communicate with health professionals to promote people's physical health. People's mental well being had been promoted by 'easy to use' video conferencing that relatives and friends could easily access.

The registered manager was participating in a comprehensive home testing process and had completed testing for people and staff. They had comprehensive knowledge of good practice guidance and had attended Covid 19 webinars hosted by Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council. They had sufficient staff to provide continuity of support and ensure safeguards were in place should there be a staff shortage.

We saw Covid 19 policies and procedures were in place and current. They were regularly reviewed when guidance changed. The home was clean and hygienic. All staff had received Covid 19 related supervision and had access to appropriate support to manage their wellbeing should it be required.

Magdalene House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for up to a maximum of 52 people. At the time of the inspection there were 48 people accommodated in the home.

At the last inspection in July 2015, we rated the service as good. At this inspection, we found the service remained good.

People living in the home told us they felt safe and staff treated them well. People were supported by enough skilled staff. The registered manager monitored staffing levels to ensure people’s needs were met. Appropriate recruitment procedures were followed to ensure prospective staff were suitable to work in the home. Safeguarding adults’ procedures were in place and staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse. Potential risks to people's safety and welfare had been assessed and preventive measures had been put in place where required. People's medicines were managed appropriately.

Staff had the knowledge and skills required to meet people's individual needs effectively. They completed an induction programme when they started work and they were up to date with the provider's mandatory training. People were supported to make decisions about their care and staff sought people’s consent before they provided support. The registered manager planned to further embed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 within the care planning process. There were appropriate arrangements in place to support people to have a healthy diet. People had access to a GP and other health care professionals when they needed them.

Staff treated people in a respectful and dignified manner and people's privacy was respected. Some people living in the home had been consulted about their care needs and had been involved in the care planning process. We observed people were happy, comfortable and relaxed with staff. Care plans and risk assessments provided guidance for staff on how to meet people’s needs and preferences. There were established arrangements in place to ensure the care plans were reviewed and updated regularly.

The service was responsive to people’s individual needs and preferences. People were given the opportunity to participate in social activities both inside and outside the home. People had access to a complaints procedure and were confident any concerns would be taken seriously and acted upon.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and ensure people received safe and effective care. These included seeking and responding to feedback from people in relation to the standard of care.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Several people told us they felt safe. We observed staff throughout the day treating people with compassion and there was a good rapport with them. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. We saw that there were effective systems on the prevention of or reporting possible abuse.

Several people told us they had no concerns. Comments included, "I have no complaints", "No complaints, overall I feel well cared for" and "I would talk to my daughter if I had any concerns but I do not". Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. We saw that managers conducted audits on concerns, incidents, compliments and complaints to help improve the service. We had received two share your experience forms prior to the inspection and looked into the reported concerns.

Several people who used the service told us the home was clean and tidy. We toured most of the building and found it to be warm, clean and well decorated. One member of staff had been trained in advanced infection control topics and all staff had received basic training. The provider reported any outbreaks of infectious diseases to the public health department who had responded and provided support and guidance.

Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. We saw that the plans had been reviewed on a regular basis to keep people's care up to date. People had access to professionals and specialists to help maintain their health and welfare. Quality assurance survey forms showed us that people were satisfied with the service they received. We spoke with many people who used the service who told us they felt well cared for. Comments included, "I can only speak for myself but they look after me very well. "I am very well cared for" and "I get the care I need. Staff are very good and know what they are doing".

People who used the service were supported to make decisions. One person was taking herself into town and another person told us that was also her aim.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. We talked to many people and asked if they had any complaints. Nobody we spoke with had any concerns although one person said, "You occasionally have to wait for assistance but if they are busy you can expect that".

There was a safe system for the administration of medication. We saw that the storage of medication was safe. Staff were trained to give medication and had policies and procedures and other sources of information to follow safe practices.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with many people about staff and their attitude. Comments included, "The staff are very nice", "Staff are fine", "The staff have a good attitude. No complaints from me" and "They do a good job". People were supported by kind and attentive staff.

People who used the service, their family, friends and other professionals were asked about their views of the care home. This included an annual survey which we looked at and saw the positive results. The provider used the comments and surveys to help improve the service.

We had received information from an anonymous source that food served at the home was bland, poor quality and people were left to wait after meals for an unreasonable time. We sat in the dining room for a large part of the inspection. Staff brought people who used the service for their meals a short time before the meal was served and all were taken back to their rooms or lounges in a timely manner. The food served on the day was warm, nutritious and appeared tasty. People who used the service told us, "The meals are always nice", "It was good. I ate it all", "I have no complaints about the food at all" and "The food is good". We spoke with many other people who all said the food was good. People had their nutritional needs risk assessed and specialist help or diets provided when necessary. There was a record of people's weights and we noted that their weight was stable. We looked at the food supplies and found them to be of good quality and plentiful. There was a good supply of fresh fruit and vegetables. Plans of care showed people's choices and needs were recorded around their nutrition. People were given sufficient food and drink to maintain their nutritional needs.

Is the service responsive?

People who used the service had a wide range of interests and hobbies recorded in their plans of care. We looked at the records for activities which showed us people played dominoes, enjoyed arts and crafts sessions, went out to venues of interest and were entertained in the home by groups and musicians. People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly.

The service conducted surveys to ensure they received the care they needed. 'Resident' meetings gave people the opportunity to discuss meals and activities. One group were organising a summer fair. They had completed posters and were contacting local organisations for support. People who used the service could participate in events if they wished.

Is the service well-led?

We saw that the service worked well with other agencies and organisations. We saw that meetings with professionals were arranged if it was necessary. We saw that there was a system for sharing information in an emergency to pass on care and personal details.

The registered manager and other key staff conducted audits on the quality of care plans, infection control, medication and the environment. The service had quality assurance systems in place.

The registered manager gave her personal telephone number to people who used the service or their family members to contact her if they had any concerns or wanted information to help improve standards.

People were involved in their care and gave their consent to care and treatment.

Plans of care were detailed and kept up to date for staff to deliver effective care.

The environment was homely and we saw evidence equipment, furnishings and the decor were well maintained.

Staff were sufficiently well trained and supported to meet the needs of people who used the service.

People felt confident that their concerns would be listened to.