You are here

Archived: Michael House

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 February 2013
Date of Publication: 27 February 2013
Inspection Report published 27 February 2013 PDF

People should be cared for in a clean environment and protected from the risk of infection (outcome 8)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Providers of services comply with the requirements of regulation 12, with regard to the Code of Practice for health and adult social care on the prevention and control of infections and related guidance.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 5 February 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

Reasons for our judgement

During the visit we looked at all areas of the home and looked at how the infection control systems were working. We saw that staff had access to personal protective equipment, for example, disposable gloves and aprons. There was a good supply of cleaning equipment and chemicals, which were safely stored in a locked storeroom. Support staff told us that although they had access to these materials they were used mainly by cleaning staff who cleaned the communal areas within the home. Each person had their own cleaning materials and was responsible for cleaning their own accommodation. All areas of the home that we looked at appeared clean.

We saw that a poster for colour coding cleaning equipment was displayed within the cleaning store. A colour coding scheme for cleaning materials and equipment had been introduced to ensure that different items were used in kitchens, bathrooms and communal areas, therefore reducing the risk of cross contamination or infection. We visited a number of rooms which included people’s own accommodation and communal areas such as the laundry room and a bathroom. We found that the colour coding system for cleaning equipment was in use.

People we spoke with told us that staff kept the communal areas very clean but they were responsible for cleaning their own rooms: “My PA comes in to do my cleaning.” Another person said of the staff: “They are good at helping in the house.” People we spoke with confirmed that support staff used clinical waste bags if they needed to.

The domestic and catering manager had recently completed a training course and had been appointed the lead for infection prevention and control. They told us that the training course had enabled them to have sufficient knowledge for the role. We looked at staff training records which showed that all staff had received training in infection control but for a large percentage of the staff this had taken place over three years ago. The service had identified this training need and a date had been set for training in infection prevention and control to take place within the next month.

The service had an infection control policy which had been reviewed and updated in January 2013. We saw a copy of this document which was waiting publication and would be circulated to all the provider’s homes shortly. The provider may find it useful to note that the service showed us a cleaning services audit but was not able to provide us with copies of any infection control audits. By not auditing the infection control procedures they were unable to identify any shortfalls and take action to address these.