Archived: Southernwood Promoting Independence Centre

On the day of our inspection we found not all staff were wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in line with national guidance. Guidance for keeping people safe in care homes stipulated that all staff working in care homes were required, as a minimum, to wear suitable face masks. We observed a staff member in an ancillary role who did not have direct contact with residents was not wearing or expected to wear a facemask. We spoke with the registered manager during the inspection and followed up with them and a representative of the provider following the inspection. We signposted them to the national guidance and they told us they were exploring how best to implement the guidance in a safe way.

We also found the home had mostly supported people using the service to maintain contact with their family and friends. However, the provider was not promoting and supporting people to have an essential carer giver in line with government guidance. We have signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.

We found the following examples of good practice.

There were arrangements in place to prevent the risks for all types of visitors catching and spreading infection.

People living in the home and their relatives were mostly supported to maintain contact. When visitors were unable to access the home, for example, if they tested positive for COVID-19, garden and window visits were supported, as well as the use of technology such as video calling.

A programme of regular COVID-19 testing for people in the home, staff and visitors to the home was implemented.

All visitors, including professionals were subject to a range of screening procedures, including showing evidence of vaccination and a negative lateral flow test before entry into the home was allowed.

There was an ample supply of PPE for staff and any visitors to use. Hand sanitiser was readily available throughout the service. Staff had received updated training on the use of PPE and we mostly observed staff wearing it correctly during out inspection. Clear signage and information were in place throughout the home to remind staff of their responsibilities.

People’s experience of using this service: People received support from kind and caring staff who respected their privacy and dignity. People using the service were there on short term placements to have their needs fully assessed or to support their rehabilitation before returning home. Staff worked with people, relatives and other professionals to create personalised care plans which helped to promote people’s independence.

Care records continued to be detailed and individual. Staff worked closely with other health care agencies to support people during their placement at the service. Staff regularly reviewed people’s needs to reflect any changes.

The premises were safe for people using the service. There were environmental and personal risk assessments in place to help keep people safe but not all environmental risks had been fully identified or mitigated. Medicines continued to be managed safely.

The registered manager and provider monitored the quality and safety. They used a governance framework to address issues and improve the service.

Staff continued to be safely recruited and received regular refresher training. The staff team was well established and no new members of staff had been recruited since our last inspection. People received safe care from competent staff.

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 join in activities within the service and within the local community. Staff supported people to maintain their social relationships.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published September 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the previous inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through information we receive from the service, the provider, the public and partnership agencies. We will re-visit the service in-line with our inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

We last inspected Southernwood Promoting Independence Centre in January 2014. At that inspection we found the service was meeting the legal requirements in force at the time.

Southernwood Promoting Independence Centre is a service that provides accommodation and personal care for up to 24 older people, some whom may live with dementia. The service provides short term respite and assessment of peoples’ care needs.

A registered manager was in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

People said they were safe and staff were kind and approachable. Peoples’ comments included, “I feel safe. Staff help build people’s confidence,” and, “Staff are always around to help.” Several compliments had been received from people who stayed at the service. For example, “I can’t thank you all enough for the kindness I’ve been given in the last six weeks. It’s made me happier than I’ve been in the last six years. I took you all on as my friends, now I’m smiling and laughing once again. Thank you.”

People were protected as staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse. When new staff were appointed, thorough vetting checks were carried out to make sure they were suitable to work with people who needed care and support.

Systems were in place for people to receive their medicines in a safe way. People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Appropriate training was provided and staff were supervised and supported.

There was a good standard of record keeping and records reflected the care provided by staff. Staff knew the people they were supporting well. People we spoke with told us staff were patient and caring and peoples’ privacy and dignity were respected. Their comments included, “I never feel uncomfortable and always feel I can ask for anything I need,” and, “Staff always treat me with respect.”

Staff and people who used the service said the management team were approachable. Communication was effective to ensure staff and relatives were kept up to date about any changes in people’s care and support needs during their stay at the service.

A complaints procedure was available. People told us they had no need to complain but they would feel confident to speak to staff about any concerns if it was necessary.

The home had a quality assurance programme to check the quality of care provided. People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. Their comments included, “The staff are very caring and helpful. If I needed to come here again in the future I would have no worries,” and, “I have enjoyed my stay here. Staff were very kind and helpful and the food was nice.” There was consultation with people and family members and their views were used to improve the service.

We were able to observe the experiences of people who use the service. We saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect. We saw that staff communicated well with people and explained everything in a way that was easily understood. Staff were attentive and interacted well with people. We observed that people responded positively to the staff throughout. Staff encouraged and supported people to make their own choices and so maintain a degree of independence. For instance, we observed people making choices about their meals and about the times of their physiotherapy sessions. We saw people had been supported and given choice about their personal care.

The manager told us they had carried out a survey of people who used the service and their relatives. They had been asked about their likes and dislikes and had provided feedback on the service.

We found that people were encouraged and supported to make their own choices and found there was detailed care and support information in place for people using the service.

'It's a lovely service. I have been spoilt.'

'I have no complaints here.'

'The staff are so helpful, they are lovely girls.'

'I have been well supported here. I am not sure I want to go home. The staff have really helped me. I hope now I will cope at home.'

'It's very good, I couldn't fault it.'

We found that people who used the service had their care and welfare needs met.

We found that there were good systems in place for the involvement of other health or social care professionals.

We found that people who used the service were protected and safe. We found that there was an effective infection control system in place and that the home had a clean and suitable environment.

We found that people's views were important and listened to by the staff. We found that there was an effective complaints system in place.

We saw good examples of personal care provided by staff. We saw that people were safe and protected from abuse. We reviewed records which showed the provider effectively monitored the performance of the home. We found that the staff at the home was suitably experienced and qualified to meet the needs of the people who use the service.

The people staying in the service and the visitors we met during the visit were very positive about the way that the home was managed. Comments included: 'It's lovely, you can't fault it' and 'The staff are absolutely marvellous. They work very hard.'