We carried out a review of the data available to us about Rushwell House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Rushwell House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Safe arrangements were in place for visitors to the service including professionals and others. This included taking a Rapid Flow Device (LFD) before the visit, showing evidence of full vaccination, a temperature check and a sign in process.
Hand washing, hand sanitisation, social distancing and the wearing of personal protective equipment (PPE) was encouraged. These measures helped keep people using the service, staff and visitors stay safe.
Staff received infection control training and specific training on reducing the risks of the transmission of COVID-19. Training included good handwashing practices and the procedure for safely putting on and taking off PPE (donning and doffing).
Staff had access to enough supplies of PPE including disposable facemasks, face visors, gloves, aprons and disinfectant wipes. Hand sanitiser stations were available throughout the home in communal and private areas and used PPE was disposed of safely to reduce the risk of cross contamination.
Routine testing for COVID-19 was in place for all people using the service and staff and swift action was taken should anyone receive a positive result.
Systems were in place to ensure cleaning schedules were followed. Enhanced cleaning and disinfection took place throughout the home to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. This included regular cleaning of frequently touched areas, such as light switches, call bells, door handles and handrails.
Systems were in place to ensure staff and visitors to the service were kept up to date with current COVID-19 guidance. Policies, procedures, risk assessments and guidance relating to COVID-19 were up to date.
Infection control audits and checks regularly took place and the provider had oversight of infection prevention and control processes.
COVID-19 outbreaks followed current guidance and advice from the healthcare protection team (HPT) to contain and manage outbreaks. This included, isolation and cohorting in response to outbreaks to manage the spread of infection. People were supported to isolate in their own rooms when necessary.
Rushwell House is a residential care home for up to eight people with learning disabilities. There were seven people using the service at the time of our inspection.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the 'Registering the Right Support' and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
There was a registered manager who had been the manager of the service since 27 September 2019.
Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to safeguard people from the risk of harm.
People’s medicines were managed in a safe way. Staff followed care plans which guided staff how to keep people safe. People’s risk assessments were reviewed regularly or as people’s needs changed.
There were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs, further recruitment was taking place to increase people’s support for activities. Staff were recruited using safe recruitment practices. Staff received training to enable them to meet people’s needs and were supported to carry out their roles.
People received care from staff they knew. Staff had a good understanding of people's needs, choices and preferences. People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided and their privacy and dignity were protected and promoted. Staff gained people's consent before providing personal care.
People were involved in the planning of their care which was person centred and updated regularly. People were supported to express themselves, their views were acknowledged and acted upon. The registered manager responded to complaints using the providers policies.
The registered manager and provider were aware the building required improvements to ensure the building continued to meet people’s needs as their needs changed.
The registered manager continually monitored the quality of the service, identifying issues and making changes to improve the care. Staff were involved in making improvements following incidents and lessons learnt were clearly communicated. The registered manager promoted a staff culture which was open and honest.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 14 July 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection on the 25 June 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.
A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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. A new manager had been appointed since the last inspection and was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
People received safe care. Robust staff recruitment procedures were followed. The staffing levels met people’s needs. People were protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.
People received effective care. Staff had received appropriate training and support to keep their knowledge and skills up to date. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives according to their capabilities. The care people received was very individualised. People were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and empowered to be involved in making decisions and taking control of their lives. The staff respected people’s diversity, and knew the people who used the service extremely well.
People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support. The personalised care plans facilitated the staff to provide consistent support in line with people’s preferences. People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and effective systems were in place to manage complaints.
People benefitted from using a service that had a positive, person centred ethos and an open culture. People, their relatives and staff had confidence in the manager’s ability to provide consistent high quality managerial oversight and leadership. Established quality monitoring systems were used to drive continuous improvement.
Rushwell House is a care home for up to eight people with a learning disability. There were seven people living in the home on the day of the inspection.
This inspection took place on 25 June 2015 and was unannounced.
The home has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 had been trained to recognise signs of potential abuse and keep people safe. People felt safe living at the service.
Processes were in place to manage identifiable risks within the service and to ensure people did not have their freedom restricted unnecessarily.
The provider carried out recruitment checks on new staff to make sure they were suitable to work at the service.
There were systems in place to ensure people were supported to take their medicines safely and at the appropriate times.
Staff had been provided with the appropriate training to ensure people’s assessed needs were met.
People’s consent to care and support was sought in line with the current legislations. The service worked to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 key principles, which state that a person's capacity should always be assumed.
People had a choice in what they wished to eat and drink and helped in the preparation of meals.
People were registered with a GP. If required they were supported by staff to access other healthcare facilities.
Positive and caring relationships had been developed between people and staff.
Staff had a good understanding of the needs of the people they were supporting.
People received care in a dignified and respectful manner and were encouraged to maintain their independence.
Pre-admission assessments were undertaken before people came to live at the service. This was to ensure that their identified needs would be adequately met.
A complaints procedure had been developed to let people know how to raise concerns about the service if they needed to.
There were quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and to continuously improve on the service delivery.
We saw that people's support plans were detailed and took account of people's individual needs and how this would be supported and included planned activities that involved them to pass the time.
During this visit we found that the provider had made improvements to the surroundings and facilities at the home where people lived, and to their quality assurance programme which ensured the quality of service people received.
We saw that people's support plans were detailed and took account of people's individual needs and how this would be supported and included planned activities that involved them to pass the time.
We saw that the provider needed to make improvements to the surroundings and facilities at the home where people lived. The provider's quality assurance programme needed improvements to make sure the provider took timely actions on available information to ensure the quality of service people received.