Background to this inspection
Updated
5 December 2018
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This was a comprehensive inspection, and was carried out on 23 and 25 October 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced, and was carried out by one adult social care inspector, one assistant inspector and one expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service. The inspection team was supported by a registered sign language interpreter during the first day of the inspection. This was because people living at the service and some staff communicated using sign language.
Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that the provider completes to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also looked at the notifications we received from the service and reviewed other information CQC had to help inform us about the level of risk for the service. We reviewed all this information to help us make a judgement about the service.
During the inspection we spoke with seven people living at the service. We spoke with five people’s relatives by phone after the inspection. We spoke with eight members of staff, as well as the registered manager and deputy manager. After the inspection, we received feedback from four external professionals who worked with the service.
We looked at six care records and four staff files. We also looked at a range of records and documents such as meeting minutes, policies, audits and environmental reports.
During the inspection we used an observation tool called the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). This tool gave us a way of observing and recording care and interactions to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.
Updated
5 December 2018
Leopold Muller Home is a care home that provides accommodation, personal and nursing care to a maximum of 20 Deaf and Deafblind people with additional complex care needs. At the time of our inspection there were 19 people living at Leopold Muller Home.
Bedrooms, bathrooms and toilets were located on the ground, first and second floors and a lift was available for access. Communal areas were on the ground and first floor, including lounge areas, large dining room and outdoor spaces.
At our last inspection in June 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good, and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated Good:
People and their relatives were complimentary about the service, the care received, and the staff team.
Relatives told us that they were consulted and informed about people’s care. Records were clear and reflected people's needs and preferences. Risk assessments were in place to support people safely whilst ensuring people’s independence was promoted.
People enjoyed the food provided, and staff supported people to eat and drink where needed. Care records gave guidance about support needs and preferences. People’s dietary needs had been assessed by specialists where necessary.
People had access to a range of specialist and routine healthcare services.
People's medicines were administered as prescribed and managed safely by suitably trained staff. However, recording the application of creams and ointments was inconsistent. This was discussed with nursing staff and changes to improve recording and compliance with policy were explored immediately.
There was a positive and enthusiastic staff team who felt supported and worked well as a team.
Staff knew people well, and were caring and patient. Staff received training and support to ensure people received safe and effective care.
The provider ensured that there were enough staff, although some were regular relief or agency staff. The service was recruiting new staff, and followed effective procedures to ensure prospective staff were suitable to work in the service.
Systems were in place to monitor and review the quality of the service. There was regular monitoring of health and safety, incidents and accidents as well as regular equipment checks and maintenance.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Further information is in the detailed findings below