Uvedale Hall Residential Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

We observed staff following good infection prevention and control practices including appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in line with government guidance to reduce the risk of infection.

Uvedale Hall Residential Home was clean and hygienic throughout with increased cleaning taking place across all aspects of the building. Windows and doors were observed to be open to support with ventilation in the home.

Lateral flow tests were being used in line with government guidance, and staff were routinely completing Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests which decreased the risks of infection being present without detection.

People were being supported to receive visits from their family, friends and/ or representatives and these were being completed in line with current government guidance.

Vaccination records were monitored and stored by the registered manager for people, staff and regular visitors. Where visiting professionals attend the service their vaccination status was checked on arrival.

Feedback from people who lived in the home and staff was that there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. The registered manager advised that they currently had no workforce pressures and had been able to recruit when needed.

The registered manager advised they rarely had to use agency staff as they were able to utilise exisiting ‘bank’ staff to cover shifts, sickness and holidays or extra staff as and when needed. ‘Bank’ staff are a pool of people trained to the providers standards that can be called on to provide additional cover.

On the occasions where agency staff had been used the registered manager utilised a ‘preferred’ agency whose staff had worked in the home before and were familiar with the people who lived there and how the provider operated.

Uvedale Hall can accommodate up to 29 people and there were 25 people using the service on the day of our inspection. Uvedale Hall is Georgian building which has been converted to provide residential care to people some of whom are living dementia.

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

The manager and senior staff carried out an assessment of people’s needs before they commenced using the service. The information recorded, explained how the support was to be provided in line with the person’s preferences and choices.

Staff had received training including the safeguarding of people, administration of medicines, dementia awareness, infection control and moving and handling. Staff informed us they had regular supervision and a yearly appraisal. People using the service told us that there were sufficient members of staff on duty at all times to support them. The service continued to recruit staff safely through a robust recruitment process.

Staff recorded when necessary how they had supported people to have enough to eat and drink of their choice. People’s care plans recorded information about support provided by other professionals and when healthcare appointments had been made for them by the staff with their permission.

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 told us that their personal care and support was provided in a way which maintained their privacy and dignity. People spoke positively about the way staff treated them and reported that they received appropriate care. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of the people they cared for and supported, such as people with a diagnosis of diabetes or dementia.

The service had a complaints process and we saw that complaints were recorded and responded to in line with the service procedure. During times of planned care reviews staff spoke with people to determine if they had any end of life wishes and those shared were recorded in the care plan. Activities continued to be developed with the people living at the service so that they could enjoy hobbies and interests at the service while accessing the local community.

An operational manager was overseeing the service at the time of the inspection. They worked closely with the regional director who visited the service regularly to support the service governance process. Senior staff arranged audits and surveys to determine the views of people using the service and professionals supporting people to determine if any improvements could be made.

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 2 August 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 inspection on 19 March 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The people who lived in the service told us that they felt safe and well cared for. They believed that the care workers knew what support they needed and that they were trained to meet those needs and to keep them safe. There were enough staff on duty, including senior staff, catering and housekeeping, to protect people from harm. Risks to people were assessed and steps had been put in place to safeguard people from harm without restricting their independence unnecessarily. People’s medicines were managed safely.

People were asked for their consent by staff before supporting them in their day to day care. Staff were provided with training in Safeguarding Adults from abuse, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager knew how to make a referral if required. 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.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. They were also supported to maintain good health and access healthcare services.

We saw many examples of positive and caring interactions between the staff and people living in the service. People were able to express their views and staff listened to what they said and took action to ensure their decisions were acted on. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity.

People received care that was personalised and responsive to their needs. The service listened to people’s experiences, concerns and complaints. They took steps to investigate complaints and to make any changes needed.

The service was well led by a relatively new registered manager who felt they were well supported by the organisation during their introduction into the service. People using the service and the staff they managed told us that the registered manager was open, supportive and had good management skills. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service the organisation offered people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

We saw that staff interacted with people in a caring, respectful and professional manner. They were attentive to people's needs and responded to requests for assistance promptly.

We looked at the care records of four people who used the service and found that people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

We found that there were sufficient numbers of staff who were trained to meet the needs of the people who used the service. We looked at four staff member's personnel records which showed that checks on staff were made before they started work to ensure that they were able to work with vulnerable people.

We found that the provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the care that people were provided with.

We found that staff were supported to care for people appropriately. People using the services were offered food which was nutritional and met their needs. People were cared for in an environment that was clean and free from the risk of infection.