You are here

Archived: Care Management Group - 361 The Ridge Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 29 May 2014
Date of Publication: 2 July 2014
Inspection Report published 02 July 2014 PDF

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

Not met 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 29 May 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

People were not always cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

Reasons for our judgement

The manager was the designated infection control lead at the time of the inspection. The manager was aware of the hygiene and infection control requirements for care homes as stated in relevant guidance.

We saw that hazardous chemicals were stored appropriately in a locked cupboard with only staff having access to the key. The laundry room was unlocked for people to use under staff supervision and staff ensured that all chemicals and floor cleaners were stored safely. This meant that people who used the service were kept safe from the hazards associated with cleaning chemicals.

There was a folder in place dedicated to infection control policies and procedures including audits based on good practice. We looked at the organisations policies and procedures for infection control. There was a range of guidance available in respect of isolation and communicable diseases. The home followed legionella testing protocols and there was evidence of regular audits that protected people from the risk of legionella. This showed us that there was information available to staff on how to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

When we undertook a tour of the premises we saw that some areas were not properly cleaned. The kitchen was an area that the people who used the service were encouraged to use. We saw that some areas were stained, including the sink, and the work tops were not clean at the beginning of our visit whilst food was being prepared. However, we saw it being cleaned following lunch. A wet room on the ground floor was not draining efficiently and there was used water on the floor, which was seeping in to the corridor. The room smelt strongly of damp. We also noted that there were used gloves left on shelving in the room. In the cabinet there was an unnamed electric toothbrush which was congealed and uncovered. We also found several toothbrushes for one person had been left in an unclean state in their bathroom. We noted that one bedroom had a bad odour. The source of the odour was not visually seen. This meant that the systems in place for infection control were not effective at maintaining adequate hygiene.

We looked at equipment, such as hoists and slings. The equipment was clean but the slings in two bathrooms were not name specific and were hanging together so could be a source of cross contamination. We noted there was an ample supply of slings in the laundry room that had been washed. People’s wheelchairs were clean and well maintained.

We looked at the cleaning schedules record and cleaning check lists. Records evidenced the cleaning schedule for week commencing the 28 April 2014 which was only partially completed and there were no records of subsequent weeks. We were told by the manager that the records had been mislaid. The lack of clear records meant that the provider could not be certain that cleaning schedules were being followed.

The manager told us that the main cleaning of communal areas, kitchens and bathrooms was completed by the night staff. People’s bedrooms were cleaned daily by the staff on duty in the daytime and cleaned in depth at weekends. We did not visit all bedrooms, but the ones we did look at were tidy.

We saw that staff used colour coded mops and buckets for floor cleaning, for example red bucket and red mop for bodily fluids and green for peoples bedrooms. There was an ample supply of red biodegradeable bags for soiled clothing and bedding. By direct observation we saw that staff were aware of infection control issues and when to use aprons and gloves. There were gloves and aprons available in easily accessible areas throughout the home. We saw that staff followed good practice guidelines in clearing up spills in the dining area. However, on one occasion we saw that staff used a red bucket and mop indicating that an incontinence accident had occurred, but they only cleaned the floor not the chair at the dining table where the accident had occurred .

Staff training records showed that