We carried out a review of the data available to us about Villa Scalabrini on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Villa Scalabrini, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Processes were in place to reduce risks of COVID-19. Such as visitors checked for signs and symptoms of infection by use of screening questions, temperature checks and results of lateral flow tests. Professional visitors and staff were also asked to prove their COVID-19 vaccination status. All visitors were asked to wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as masks, aprons and gloves and sanitise their hands regularly.
People were supported to maintain contact with friends and relatives by use of video and telephone calls, indoor and outdoor visits. People and relatives told us they were happy with the current visiting options and information that was shared with them.
Staff were observed to be wearing PPE correctly and told us they had access to more if needed. Staff told us they felt supported and safe working at the service.
The service was clean and tidy and had no mal odours. There were regular cleaning schedules in place for daily, weekly and monthly cleaning tasks. Visiting areas were cleaned in-between visits.
People and staff took part in a regular testing regime in line with current government guidance. For people who were unable to make decisions about testing or visiting for themselves, individual risk assessments and mental capacity assessments were in place and decisions made in their best interest.
Staff had received training on the use of PPE, COVID-19 and infection control. Their practice in these areas was assessed by senior staff and supported by training from external professionals, who gave positive feedback about the services infection control practices.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ The service was receiving professional visitors with infection control procedures in place. Visitors were screened and had their temperatures checked by staff on arrival. Alcohol gel was made available and all visitors were required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE).
¿ The service had adapted an office space into a visiting room for people and their relatives. The room had been partitioned with a large window in place, along with an intercom, where visitors can enter the room via an external door without access to any other areas of the service. At the time of our inspection, visits had been temporarily suspended due to an outbreak of COVID-19 at the service. The registered manager told us that once visits are resumed they will be limited and by appointment only, with times allocated to avoid potential infection transmission with other visitors.
¿ People and staff had engaged with the routine testing scheme. Where people received a positive test result for COVID-19, they were supported to isolate in their bedrooms for a period of 14 days. Staff were allocated to solely work on one of the units within the service.
¿ Risks to people and staff in relation to their health, safety and wellbeing had been assessed.
Villa Scalabrini is a residential care home. It provides residential care for up to 49 older people. At the time of our inspection 49 people were accommodated at the home.
The home is a purpose built in the style of a small village, originally for the Italian community and now welcoming people from all cultures, nationalities and religions. The home was set in attractive gardens, which included a 'memorial garden'. People also had access to an enclosed garden with many tropical birds and a vegetable garden where people could enjoy the outside space.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People, relatives and friends all spoke very highly of the care received at Villa Scalabrini. People were at the heart of the home and everything centred around giving them an extraordinary quality of life. People were treated as individuals in a culture that was values based and nothing was ever too much trouble. People and their families spoke about a compassionate staff group, we repeatedly heard people describing the home and staff as outstanding, excellent, kind, compassionate and thoughtful.
There was a strong spiritual ethos at the service and an appreciation for what had been achieved at Villa Scalabrini. The 'Villa' (as people referred to the home) had a happy feel. The ambience was felt as soon as you entered; lots of happy, busy people going about their daily business. People had a purpose, a mission, and staff were on hand to support people to achieve the best possible quality of life.
People told us it was a family home and family members confirmed they were warmly welcomed involved and all were delighted that people had thrived so well since coming to live at the 'Villa'. People had lived much longer than expected with many people well over 100 years old. Family told us they believed this was because of the excellent care people received at the 'Villa'. People and their relatives were fully involved in all aspect of their lives and how they choose to live them. This had a positive impact on people’s psychological and physical health and wellbeing. It also empowered people and gave them control and independence.
People felt safe. Staff were well trained and knew how to report any concerns under the safeguarding procedure. Staff were aware of how to elevate concerns if required. Staff knew how to keep people safe and mitigate any identified risks to people. Staff were recruited through a robust procedure. There were enough staff employed to support people in a timely way. People received their medicines safely.
People were encouraged and 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 had consented to all care and support. Staff were aware of the mental capacity assessments process and depravation of liberty safeguards (DoLs).
People’s individual needs were assessed and reviewed monthly. This helped to ensure all information was current and the care was effective. People's dietary needs were well catered for including any specialist requirements. If any concerns were noted referrals were made to appropriate professionals.
People were engaged fully in a complete and varied range of activities organised around people’s individuals’ abilities, interests and hobbies. External events were regularly organised, and the community was fully involved and attended events organised at the home or within the grounds.
People’s care and support plans were very personalised with a great deal of detail. Information about people’s lives, history family, likes, dislikes and preferences were all recorded to help the staff really get to know the person well.
The service had a complaints procedure in place. People and their relatives told us they never had to complain as they could bring anything to the staff’s attention and it would be addressed. We saw that many compliments had been received.
The provider, registered manager and staff worked professionally with other agencies and organisations to help ensure people received holistic and seamless care which achieved positive outcomes for them.
Quality assurance systems were in place for all aspects of the service. Audits were completed regularly and were reviewed to ensure quality was always a priority. The ethos related to the values and passion of all the management and staff team. Staff were accountable and had individual roles and responsibilities which they took very seriously.
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 09 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.
Villa Scalabrini provides accommodation for up to 49 people with residential and dementia needs. It does not provide nursing care. At the time of this inspection there were 47 people living at Villa Scalabrini.
There was a manager in post who was registered with CQC. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.
When we last inspected the service on 9 June 20175 we found the provider was meeting the regulations. At this inspection we found that the provider was continuing to meet the regulations.
People told us they felt safe living at Villa Scalabrini. Staff demonstrated they knew how to keep people safe and risks to people's safety and well-being were assessed and kept under regular review to help to keep them safe. People's medicines were managed safely, by staff who had received training.
People had their needs met in a timely way and we observed there were sufficient numbers of staff who had the right skills and experience to support people safely. There was a robust recruitment process in place. This helped to ensure that staff who were employed at the service were suitable to work in a care setting.
Staff received regular support from their line managers which included one to one supervision and team meetings. Staff told us they felt well supported.
People received the assistance they needed to eat and drink sufficient amounts to maintain their health. People were supported to access healthcare professionals when required.
People and their relatives were positive about the staff and management at the service. We observed staff to be kind and caring. Staff were knowledgeable about peoples individual requirements in relation to their care and support needs and preferences.
People and or their relatives had been involved in the planning of their care where they were able to and where this was appropriate. Visitors were welcomed to the home at all times and were invited to join in events and celebrations throughout the year.
People were supported to participate in a range of varied activities that were provided. There were arrangements in place to receive feedback from people who used the service and their relatives.
People were able to raise any concerns they had and told us that in most cases they were confident they would be listened to and any concerns would be addressed.
There were systems and processes in place to regularly monitor the quality of the care and support provided for people who used the service. Plans were in place to make continual improvements.
The inspection took place on 9 July 2015 and was unannounced. At our last inspection on 14 June 2014 the service was found to be meeting the required standards. Villa Scalabrini provides accommodation and personal care for up to 53 people, some of whom may have dementia. It does not provide nursing care. At the time of our inspection there were 47 people living at the home.
The home originally catered primarily for people of Italian origin; however the mission and ethos of the home has developed to welcome people from all ethnic backgrounds and supports people of various spiritual and religious denominations.
There was a manager in post who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The CQC is required to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are put in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves or others. At the time of the inspection a number of applications had been made to the local authority in relation to people who lived at the home.
People told us they felt safe at the home. Staff were able to demonstrate a good knowledge of how to protect people from avoidable harm and had received training in safeguarding people from abuse. We saw that there were enough staff members with appropriate skills and experience available to meet people’s needs. We saw that there were contingency plans in place to deal with any emergency situations or unforeseen events.
We found that people had been supported to take their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were administered by senior staff who had been trained in the safe administration of medicines. We saw that potential risks to people or their health and well-being had been identified, and risks mitigated where possible.
Staff told us they sought consent from people before providing support or personal care. This was, in most cases recorded in their care records.
People who used the service told us the staff were very good and kind. Relatives too were very complimentary about the abilities of the staff. We saw that staff had received Induction and training including regular updates. Staff were well supported by the management team and had team meetings, regular supervision and an annual appraisal, all of which support ongoing personal development.
People enjoyed a range of food, mainly Italian cuisine. People were able to eat in one of the dining rooms, communal areas or in their bedrooms. We observed lunch being served and saw that people had a choice of food. Specialist diets were available if required, and people were offered a range of fresh foods and drinks including regular snacks which provided people with a healthy balanced diet.
People were supported with their day to day health care needs. There were weekly visits from a local general practitioner (GP) and people had access to a range of health care professionals including chiropodists, opticians and dentists when necessary.
We observed positive interactions between staff and people who used the service and saw that people were looked after with kindness and compassion. Staff had well developed and meaningful relationships with people who knew them well. We observed gestures and body language which people were familiar with and which was personal to them. Staff were patient and calm throughout the day, and this provided reassurance to people, when there was the potential for people to be anxious.
We saw that people were involved in their care planning, and were asked about likes and dislikes. People and their relatives contributed to reviews of their care and support. Care plans were personalised. People and their relatives told us they received a service that was personal to them. We found that staff knew the people they were supporting well and knew what they liked and disliked.
People’s dignity and respect was maintained and we observed people were given privacy, and staff were discrete when assisting people with care. We saw that records relating to people were stored and moved safely to ensure confidentiality.
We saw that there was a variety of things people could do and we saw people enjoying entertainment and a musician was playing ‘Italian music’. People and their relatives said there were always things going on and there were opportunities available to pursue things that were of interest to them.
We saw that complaints were welcomed and encouraged as a way of improving the service. They had been appropriately investigated and the outcomes recorded and shared with complainants. People and staff told us that management listened to them and responded to any concerns they made, and in a positive way.
People, visitors and staff were all complimentary and positive about the management team and the management arrangements at the home. We saw that there were good governance processes in place, and a commitment to drive continual improvement.
People who were able to speak English expressed how pleased they were with the staff and the care they received. Some people commented that they had been offered a choice of activities every afternoon. One person remarked, 'I am quite happy with the care. The staff are very good. It's a pleasant place.' Another person said, 'I am happy with the care. I have no complaints.' This was echoed by another person who said, 'The staff are very good. The food is very good too, and there are plenty of choices.'
We observed that staff were readily available to assist people throughout the day. The members of staff we spoke with had good knowledge of the people using the service and delivered appropriate care.
We had a tour of the premises, including the newly renovated unit on the ground floor. We noted that the premises were well maintained and that people had access to all the facilities and communal areas, which were clean and tidy throughout.
When asked about choices, one person said, 'They provide very nice food here, and you can request things you like.' Another said, 'We have a choice of menu every day. We have an Italian music event here every Tuesday: we have had a keyboard-player and an accordion-player. We also have regular gym sessions, and organised walks in the gardens. Another person commented, 'This home is not bad. We have choices. If I want, I can go out.'