Archived: Riverside Drive

We found the following examples of good practice.

Staff kept the premises clean. The member of staff who regularly worked the waking night shift was designated the lead for cleaning and decontamination within the service. There were laundry processes in place, so clothes were not mixed and washed together, and the laundry room was subject to regular enhanced cleaning. All staff were responsible for the routine cleaning of high touch areas, such as handrails, light switches, door handles, telephones and keyboards.

There were suitable systems in place for visitors to the service to minimise the risks of spreading infection. For example, there were prearranged visiting times to minimise visitor numbers. Instructions were easily accessible on arrival at the care home to ensure visitors understood the infection prevention and control protocols they needed to follow to keep people safe. Visitors to the service were asked to wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), have their temperature checked, wash their hands and use the hand sanitiser provided before they would be allowed to enter the main part of the building. Visitors were only permitted to see their relative or friend in the confines of people's single occupancy bedroom and were not allowed to have contact with anyone else who lived at the care home.

In addition, staff supported people to keep in touch with their family and friends without physically visiting the care home. This was done through a variety of alternative methods, including video and telephone call contact, and having one-to-one meetings with their relative or friend outside in the rear garden.

There were suitable arrangements in place to ensure people admitted to the care home were tested for Covid-19. For example, people readmitted to the care home having been discharged from hospital were always tested for Covid-19 and then required to isolate in their own single occupancy bedroom for at least 14 days.

Staff used PPE in accordance with current IPC guidance. We saw staff wearing PPE correctly in communal areas, including the main lounge and dining room, the kitchen and laundry room, where it was difficult to maintain two metres social distancing. Staff had up to date internal IPC training and had received additional external training in June 2020 from Public Health England, in relation to the use of PPE. The service had adequate supplies of PPE.

The provider had thoroughly assessed and mitigated infection risks to staff working at the care home, including staff in high risk groups. The registered manager confirmed the service did not currently use any temporary agency staff. They were also aware of the new Covid-19 regulations in relation to care staff, including part-time, bank and agency staff, only working in one care setting so as to reduce the risk of spreading infection.

A regular testing scheme for all staff and people living in the care home was in place. Staff were tested at least weekly and people living at the care home monthly. People were also tested without delay if they became symptomatic or if anyone in the household bubble of a member of staff displayed symptoms. The registered manager knew how to apply for coronavirus testing kits for people living in the care home and for staff. They had no issues with the supply of Covid-19 home testing kits. People living in the care home had received the flu vaccination and staff were being encouraged to follow suit. Most staff had taken COVID-19 antibody tests.

The provider had thorough assessed and mitigated infection risks to people living at the care home. The registered manager described how staff had helped people who were anxious about wearing face coverings, to do so whilst out in the wider community. This had enabled some people living in the care home to continue visiting local shops and cafes in the area.

There were a range of IPC policies and procedures which had been reviewed and updated since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. These included contingency plans for managing adverse events, such as COVID-19 outbreaks and related staff shortages. The registered manager had routinely monitored and audited compliance with IPC practices. This included daily tours of the building to check the premises were clean and that staff wore their PPE correctly. The registered manager also supported people and their relatives to understand the isolation processes and how the service could help to alleviate them feeling lonely.

As cleaning schedules for staff to follow were not recorded, we recommended the provider consider current recognised best practice in relation to infection prevention and control (IPC) and establish recorded cleaning schedules for staff to follow. This should include the frequency of cleaning of high touch areas.

We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines as a designated care setting.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Riverside Drive is a purpose built home, managed by Wandle Housing Association. We saw and relatives told us that some areas of the home were in need of repair, redecorating or refurbishment. The registered manager told us that the maintenance of the property was an on-going issue with the housing association.

We have made a recommendation that the provider takes appropriate action to ensure the premises are maintained, repaired and decorated to meet people’s needs.

Risks to people had been assessed and regularly reviewed. People were protected from avoidable harm, discrimination and abuse. Appropriate staff recruitment checks were made. Procedures were in place to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. Medicines were administered and stored safely.

Staff were suitably trained and supported. 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. People were supported to maintain a healthy balanced diet and to stay healthy, with access to health care services as and when required.

People received support from staff who were kind and compassionate. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and ensured people's privacy was always maintained. People were supported to do as much as they could and wanted to do for themselves to retain control and independence over their lives.

The Accessible Information Standard for communication was being met. The provider had effective systems in place to deal with concerns and complaints and to assess and monitor the quality of the service people received.

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 29 March 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 Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection in December 2014, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good. The service demonstrated they met the regulations and fundamental standards.

People continued to be safe at Riverside Drive. Staff knew how to protect people from the risk of abuse or harm. They followed appropriate guidance to minimise identified risks to people's health, safety and welfare. There were enough staff to keep people safe. The provider had appropriate arrangements in place to check the suitability and fitness of all staff.

The environment was clean and staff demonstrated good awareness of the importance of infection control and hygiene in the home. The premises and equipment were regularly maintained and serviced to ensure these were safe. Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed.

People had a personalised support plan which set out how their care and support needs should be met by staff. These were reviewed regularly. Staff received training and were supported by the registered manager to help them to meet people’s needs effectively. Staff communicated with people using their preferred methods of communication. This helped them to develop good awareness and understanding of people's needs, preferences and wishes.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. They also received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access healthcare services when needed. Staff encouraged people to participate in activities and to maintain relationships with the people that mattered to them.

Staff were caring, treated people with dignity and respect and ensured people’s privacy was maintained particularly when being supported with their personal care needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The registered manager provided good leadership. They checked staff were focussed on people experiencing good quality care and support. People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about how the service could be improved. This was used to make changes and improvements that people wanted. The provider ensured the complaints procedure was made available in an accessible format if people wished to make a complaint. Checks and reviews of the service continued to be made by staff to ensure people experienced good quality safe care and support.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We saw evidence staff knew how to obtain people's consent before carrying out any care or support. Where people needed extra help to make decisions about their care, they had been able to choose who they wanted to help them, which was documented in their support plans. We looked at people's records and saw current support plans were in place to meet their care and support needs. Risks to their health, safety and welfare had been identified and plans were in place to manage these.

From the records we looked at these had been reviewed and updated regularly so that staff had up to date information about people's current care and support needs. There were enough staff to meet these needs. Medical records we looked at showed medicines were administered appropriately and stored safely in the home.

People received appropriate support from staff to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs and they were provided with a choice of food and drink.

We looked at other information to see what people thought about the service. We saw from recent surveys people using the service were, overall, satisfied with the care and support they had received.

We saw from people's records, their individual care and support needs had been assessed and care plans were in place to meet these needs.

Staff received training to keep their skills and knowledge up to date.

Staff carried out regular checks within the home to make sure the environment was safe for people using the service.