Sahara Gardens

We found the following examples of good practice.

The premises were clean and well maintained. Hand sanitiser and personal protective equipment (PPE) were available at the entrance of the home. Visitors had their temperature taken and recorded, PPE was available, and people were supported to follow the government's guidance on wearing PPE and social distancing.

The provider had appropriate arrangements to test people and staff for COVID-19 and was following government guidance on testing. This ensured people, visitors and staff were tested for COVID-19 in a consistent way in line with national guidance.

The provider has ensured staff received appropriate training and support to help prevent the spread of infection. All staff had received regular training on infection control and the use of PPE.

The provider had ensured people using the service could maintain links with family members and friends. Family members and friends could stay in touch with people by phone and video messaging. Family and friends could visit people at the service. Each person living at the service had a nominated individual who could visit them.

The provider understood the communication needs of people. For example, the provider used various forms of communication with people such as using objects of reference. The provider had explored different ways of supporting people through the pandemic. For example, the provider had created area in the service called ‘The Dripping Tap’ for people who liked to visit the pub and have a drink. The provider also had weekly themed restaurant nights for people who missed going out to restaurants.

The provider sought support and advice from external agencies including the local authority, and Public Health England health protection teams and was open to all advice and guidance offered to help keep people safe.

This inspection took place on 18 and 23 and 24 January 2018 and was unannounced. One inspector carried out this inspection. At the previous inspection in July 2015, the service was rated as ‘Good’ overall.

Sahara Gardens accommodates five adults with learning disabilities and autism in a two storey building. At the time of this inspection there were four people using the service.

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.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

Relatives, health and social care professionals and other agencies were complimentary about the service people received. The service used a variety of communication methods to enable people to understand information given them and to voice their opinions. People had access to advocacy services to assist them to have a voice. Staff demonstrated a good rapport with people. People’s dignity and privacy was respected and care plans took account of the support they needed around relationships. Staff assisted people to reach for their goals and aspirations and were genuinely proud of what each person achieved.

Staff received support through regular supervisions and a wide range of training opportunities appropriate for their role. The premises had been refurbished and redecorated with the kitchen relocated to meet people’s needs. Building safety checks were carried out as required. The communal garden was spectacular and had been designed with the involvement of people who used the service. People were involved in menu planning and food preparation to meet their nutritional requirements. Staff assisted people to access healthcare professionals as they needed.

People’s care was personalised. Staff were responsive to any change of needs. People participated in activities of their choice. The wide variety of activities offered included the development of independent living skills and reflected people’s cultural or religious needs. People and their relatives knew how to complain but told us they had not needed to. Care plans included very detailed end of life care plans and staff were knowledgeable about how to make people’s end of life wishes happen.

The provider had systems in place to ensure people were protected from harm. Staff were knowledgeable about the actions to take if they suspected someone was being abused. People had risk assessments and risk management plans to mitigate the risks they may face. Safe recruitment checks were carried out and people were given the opportunity to participate in the interview process of new staff. Medicines were managed safely. The provider had systems in place for the control of infection.

The provider had various systems in place to obtain feedback from people and their relatives including regular meetings and feedback surveys. People were encouraged to participate in the development of the service. Staff had regular meetings so they could be updated and contribute to service development. The provider had various quality assurance systems in place to identify areas for improvement. The service had good local links to enable people to feel part of the community.

People we spoke with said they were "fine" and their care was "good". We found people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. We found there was a safeguarding vulnerable adults and whistle-blowing policy in place.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. We reviewed the staff rota and, saw there were enough staff available throughout the day to provide people with care they needed and to meet their needs. Staff files we viewed indicated staff were suitably qualified, skilled and experienced to undertake their roles.

People we spoke with told us staff were "alright" and treated them "nicely." We found staff received appropriate professional development. Staff we spoke with told us they had opportunities to undertake regular training within the service. We reviewed three staff files.

People we spoke with told us they had no complaints about the service. We found people who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on.