You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 December 2020

Vishram Ghar accommodates up to 44 older people across two separate units, each of which have separate adapted facilities. The first unit supports people who require long-term care, some of who were living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 20 people using the service. The second unit specialises in providing short term care to people who are under assessment following illness, injury or hospital discharge. There were no people using this unit at the time of the inspection.

Overall the environment was good and was well maintained. There were some areas of the service that required improvement. The provider was in the process of building a new laundry facility as the current laundry was not fit for purpose. There were other minor areas that required decoration and sealing to prevent the ingress of fluids and the potential for cross contamination. This compromised infection control measures and the effectiveness of cleaning, which meant this could contribute to the spread of infection to people and staff.

Quality assurance audits undertaken by the provider, were not effective in identifying the shortfalls found during the inspection. We were not fully assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines.

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ Care staff regularly tested people for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and isolated people when required. The provider participated in regular Covid-19 testing of people living in the service and staff. That ensured action could be taken swiftly to reduce the potential spread of infection if a positive test was returned.

¿ Domestic staff had a thorough programme of cleaning and disinfection to deter cross infection and cross contamination within the home. Areas were cleaned and disinfected with cleaning products approved to reduce the potential transfer of infection

¿ The provider ensured plentiful supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE). This included face masks and aprons and we saw staff used these appropriately. Staff were encouraged to change their PPE regularly. Used PPE was disposed of in special foot operated pedal bins situated throughout the home which reduced the potential for transfer of infection.

¿ Staff encouraged people to wash their hands frequently throughout the day. Where this was not possible, hand sanitiser was offered as a means to reduce the transfer of infection.

¿ Risk assessments had been completed to protect people and any staff who may be at a higher risk of contracting Covid-19, measures were in place to support them. Staff were supported by the option of contacting a staff member for their personal wellbeing. The provider had appointed a member of staff to coordinate the wellbeing of all the people in the homes, their relatives and staff in all the company locations.

¿ Staff worked in set teams with staff working in defined areas, which lessened the potential of cross infection within shift members.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 9 December 2020

This review was undertaken in response to concerns received in regards to infection prevention and control.

We were not fully assured the service were following safe infection prevention and control procedures to keep people safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 December 2018

The service was effective.

People received support from staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs.

People were supported to make decisions and choices about how their care was provided.

Staff enabled people to access appropriate healthcare services and supported people to have sufficient amounts to eat and drink.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 December 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity, kindness and respect by staff who recognised and protected people's diversity and right to equality.

Staff supported people and their relatives to be involved in planning their care and making decisions about how their care was provided.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 December 2018

The service was responsive.

People received care that met their needs and records were up date and regularly reviewed to ensure they reflected people's current needs.

People were able to participate in activities, though these were not always provided consistently.

People had information on how to make complaints and the provider had systems in place to deal with complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 December 2018

The service was well led.

The registered manager was developing an open and inclusive culture focussed on providing personalised care.

Systems and processes were continuing reviewed and developed to ensure effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and action was taken whenever shortfalls were identified.

People, relatives and staff were encouraged to give their feedback and be involved in the development of the service.