Te Hira Care Home Limited

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The temperature of visitors was recorded when they arrived at the home. Visitors were provided with personal protective equipment including disposable gloves, apron and masks to protect people.

¿ A colour coded system informed staff and visitors what personal protective equipment they needed to wear in different areas of the home to prevent the transmission of infection.

¿ People's clothing and bedding were laundered individually to reduce the risks of cross contamination.

¿ Staff had been provided with 'wellbeing packs' which contained personal protective equipment to increase their safety when they were not at work.

¿ Risks associated with staff using public transport to travel to and from work had been reduced. For example, a bedroom has been created for staff so they could remain at the home between their shifts.

¿ The management team were proactively preparing for a possible second wave of the pandemic. Preparation included purchasing extra personal protective equipment and food supplies.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

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.

We last inspected this service in January 2016, when we rated the service as ‘Good’ overall. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of ‘Good’. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People were protected from the risks of abuse because staff received training in safeguarding people and they understood their responsibility to report any concerns to senior staff. Risks to people's health and wellbeing were managed.

The registered manager made sure there were enough suitably skilled, qualified and experienced staff to support people safely and effectively. The registered manager checked staff were suitable for their role before they started working for the service.

Staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and supported people to have maxi-mum choice and control of their lives. People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet that met their needs and preferences. People were supported to maintain their health.

People and staff felt well cared for. Staff understood people’s needs and interests and supported them to enjoy their lives according to their preferences. Staff respected people’s right to privacy and supported people to maintain their independence.

The registered manager demonstrated they valued care staff and promoted their learning and development. Staff enjoyed their work and were motivated to provide people with a good standard of care.

People were involved in planning how they were cared for and supported. Care was planned to meet people’s individual needs and preferences and care plans were regularly reviewed. People knew how to complain and had the opportunity to share their views and opinions about the service they received.

The registered manager was committed to ensuring people received good quality care. Systems ensured good standards of care were consistently maintained for people.

We inspected the service on 13 January 2015. The inspection was unannounced.

The service 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.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe using the service. Staff demonstrated they understood the importance of keeping people safe. They understood their responsibilities for reporting any concerns regarding potential abuse. Risks to people’s health and welfare were assessed and care plans gave staff instructions on how to minimise identified risks, so staff knew how to support people safely.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. The recruitment process checked staff’s suitability to deliver care safely. Staff received training and support that ensured people’s needs were met effectively. Staff supported people with kindness and compassion, and treated people in a way that respected their dignity and promoted their independence.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), and care workers respected people’s decisions and gained people’s consent before they provided personal care. People’s records showed their families and other health professionals were involved when they did not have capacity to make their own decisions, and any decisions made were in their best interests.

People were encouraged to maintain their independence and were involved in planning how they were cared for and supported. Care was planned to meet people’s individual needs and preferences.

People were encouraged to share their opinions about the quality of the service and we saw improvements were made in response to people’s suggestions.

The registered manager maintained an open culture at the home. There was good communication between staff members and staff were encouraged to share ideas to make improvements to the service. People said the registered manager and the deputy manager were visible and accessible in the service. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager and the registered manager valued staff and promoted their development.

The registered manager was dedicated to providing quality care to people. There were processes in place to ensure good standards of care were maintained for people.

Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

We saw most people's care records accurately reflected their care needs. We found people had appropriate risk assessments in place that made sure any risks were managed. We found people's care records were regularly evaluated and reviewed by senior staff.

We found evidence learning took place from incidents and investigations within the service and appropriate changes were implemented to improve the service.

People were cared for in an environment that was clean and hygienic.

We saw there were sufficient staff on duty to keep people safe at all times.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We were told nobody who lived at the home was under a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard.

Is the service effective?

People told us the care they received met their needs. People told us they had been involved in planning the care they received.

Staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of the needs of the people they supported and what they told us was reflected in people's care plans.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with six people who used the service and they were all positive about the staff who supported them. People told us care staff were, 'Very good', 'Helpful' and 'Genuine.'

Staff we spoke with were positive about their role as care workers and enjoyed their job.

Is the service responsive?

We found people were asked for their views about their care and these were acted on. We saw the provider had sent out an annual quality assurance questionnaire. We saw the results from the survey were positive.

We saw incidents and accidents had been responded to and actions had been taken to make improvements following investigations.

People's needs and abilities were assessed before they moved into the home. The care plans we looked at were regularly reviewed and changed as people's needs changed. We found staff supported people to see other health professionals, such as doctors, dentists and opticians when they needed to.

Is the service well led?

We found the service had a quality assurance system in place where identified actions had led to improvements in most areas of the service. There was no formal check made by the manager on health and safety issues within the home.

We found people who used the service felt able to raise any issues or concerns they had with staff. We saw care staff responded to people's comments straight away on the day of our inspection.

We saw that the property was well maintained and suitably designed to provide safe care. People's bedrooms were clean and contained their own furnishings and personal items.

We found that staff had a good understanding of the needs of the people who used the service. We found that care and support was planned and delivered in a safe way, in line with people's individual care needs and preferences.

We found that people's dietary needs were well met and that people had good choice about what they ate. One person told us," The food is very good, I am never hungry and we get plenty to eat."

We found that there was an effective recruitment process in place to ensure that staff had the skills to meet people's needs. We found that the home worked well with other services to ensure the health and wellbeing of the people who used the service. One relative told us, "The staff here are lovely, they always know how to help and nothing is too much trouble. They are usually ahead of us in noticing changes and will inform us and get the right medical help."

We saw that the property was well maintained and suitably designed to provide safe care. We saw people's bedrooms were clean and well furnished.

We found staff understood the needs of the people who used the service and that there was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere at Te Hira. We found that care and support was being planned and delivered in line with people's individual care needs.

During the visit, one person who used services told us that staff were 'helpful' and they 'take it at my pace'. A relative we spoke to told us that she, 'can't fault the staff, they are really good and enthusiastic'.

We found there was an effective complaints system in place. The complaints procedure was accessible to visitors and people who used the service and we saw that the manager responded appropriately to complaints and comments.