St Giles Charity Estates

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The service prepared and used a specific corridor as an isolation zone for people who were new admissions to the service or returned from a hospital stay. Enhanced infection control procedures were in place, including a checklist each time a staff member entered the room, to ensure good practice was followed. This reduced the risk of infection spread in the event anyone developed symptoms of COVID-19.

¿ Everyone who arrived in the service was required to have a negative test for COVID-19 immediately prior to their admission. Additionally, there was a regular programme of COVID-19 testing in place for staff and people using the service. This meant swift action could be taken if anyone received a positive test result.

¿ Safe arrangements were in place for visitors to the service including health professionals and relatives. A perspex screen across open patio doors was used effectively so people could remain in the lounge and spend time with relatives who were outside. Plans were in progress for indoor visits as and when it became safe for these to take place.

¿ The service did not use any agency workers and permanent staff did not work in any other care setting. This reduced the risk of infection spread between care services. There was capacity within the staff team to take on extra hours to cover any vacant shifts which meant people received consistent care.

¿ Measures were in place to reduce the risk of cross infection within the staff team. Staff worked in small teams so if any staff member tested positive for COVID-19 they would have had contact with a limited number of colleagues who would also need to self-isolate. There was a dedicated area for staff to change into and out of their uniforms, and all staff uniforms were laundered on site.

¿ The contingency plan was a practical working document which was regularly updated when anything changed. This meant the service were well-placed to deal with any emergency as they had robust and well thought out back up plans in place.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

At the last inspection on 23 and 28 September 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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.

People were safe. Their needs had been assessed prior to admission and they each had an agreed care plan that was regularly reviewed to ensure they continued to receive the care and support they needed. There were sufficient numbers of experienced and trained staff to safely meet people’s assessed needs. People were protected by robust recruitment procedures from receiving unsafe care from staff that were unsuited to the job. They were safeguarded from abuse and poor practice by staff that knew what action they needed to take if they suspected this was happening.

People received care and support from staff that knew what was expected of them and they carried out their duties effectively and with compassion. People were treated equally and shown respect as individuals with a range of needs that came together from diverse backgrounds. Care plans were personalised and reflected each person’s individual needs and provided staff with the information and guidance they needed to manage risk and keep people safe. Risks to people’s safety were reviewed as their needs and dependencies changed.

People were encouraged and enabled to do things for themselves by friendly staff that were responsive and attentive. Their individual preferences for the way they liked to receive their care and support were respected. Staff had insight into people’s capabilities and aspirations. People’s capacity to make informed choices had been assessed and the provider and staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the importance of seeking people’s consent when receiving care and support.

People who needed encouragement and support with eating a healthy diet received the help they required. They had enough to eat and drink.

People had access to community healthcare professionals and received timely medical attention when this was needed. There were appropriate arrangements in place for people to have regular healthcare check-ups.

Medicines were appropriately and safely managed and staff had received the training they needed in the safe administration of medicines. Medicines were securely stored and there were suitable arrangements in place for their timely administration.

People, and where appropriate, their family or other representatives were assured that if they were unhappy with the care provided they would be listened to and that appropriate action would be taken to resolve matters.

People living in the home expressed satisfaction with the care and service that they received. They told us that they were well looked after by all the staff working at the home. One person said 'I like all the staff and they are very nice and we have a very good choice of meals'. They also told us that they had one to one support from staff when they went out into the community. They told us that this made them feel safe. Another person told us that they did different activities and had recently enjoyed going on an outing in to the community with most of the other people who lived at the home. They also told us that the home was always clean and pleasantly decorated and they received their medication on time.

The people also told us that they liked the food and discussed the menu for the week in their meetings with support from care staff. They also told us that the staff listened and resolved any concerns or complaints they had about the service received. The staff we spoke with told us that they spoke to the people every day to find out their views about how the care provided by them was meeting their individual needs.

People who used the service expressed satisfaction with the care and service that they received. All the people we spoke with told us that Nicholas Rothwell House was very homely and that staff looked after them well. They told us that the food was very good. They said that they had two choices of meals at lunch time and if they did not like what was on the menu they could have another option. One person told us' I like it here and the staff are marvellous' and they spoke to them in a dignified manner. They also told us that their room was lovely and 'I have my own things in the room'. Another person told us 'I could not ask for a better place than this home'. They told us 'I am here for respite care and I have been here before'.

All the people told us that they all felt safe living at the home and they felt happy to tell any staff if they had any concerns. They told us that they had meetings on a monthly basis and they were asked about their opinions about meals, activities and anything they were not happy about. One person told us 'all the staff listens to me and I am happy here' They also said that they went to bed when they were ready to go to sleep. Another person told us that 'The staff get training and know how to look after us'.