You are here

Easthill Home for Deaf People Good

Our most recent reports on this service are available as British sign language videos. You can watch the video of our December 2015 report here. British sign language videos of our July 2015 report and our November 2014 report are also available.
All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 9, 17 September 2014
Date of Publication: 1 November 2014
Inspection Report published 01 November 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 9 September 2014 and 17 September 2014, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

We were supported on this inspection by an expert-by-experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

We used British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter to help us communicate with people and staff.

Our judgement

People were not protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not been followed. Infection control risk assessments and audits had not been completed and not all staff had been trained in the prevention and control of infection.

Reasons for our judgement

We viewed the home at the start of our inspection and found most shared areas of the home to be visibly clean. People told us their rooms were cleaned regularly and their bed linen changed weekly, although we noted a build-up of dust in some bedrooms.

Personal protective equipment (PPE), including disposable gloves and aprons, was available in most appropriate places, including in the bedrooms of people who needed support with personal care. We found aprons were not readily available in one of the bathrooms or the laundry room, which meant staff may not have been able to access them if they needed them at short notice. We saw staff using PPE appropriately for routine tasks during our inspection and they were clear about how to process soiled linen, using soluble bags; this reduced the risk of cross infection.

We saw there were used bars of soap in one of the bathrooms and the laundry room. These were communal rooms which were accessible to staff and people living at the home. If bar soap is used by more than one person, it can put people at risk of cross infection and its use is contrary to guidance issued by the Department of Health.

Appropriate guidance was not being followed. Providers are required to have regard to the Department of Health’s ‘Code of Practice on the prevention and control of infections and related guidance’ (The Code). The Code sets out the basic steps to ensure compliance with the infection control requirements of the Health and Social Care Act, 2008. We found the provider had not taken the steps necessary to meet all the requirements of this standard.

The manager told us infection control risk assessments had not been completed. The code requires assessments to be carried out to ensure infection control risks are identified, recorded and managed effectively. The code also requires providers to produce an annual statement on infection control. This should review: outbreaks of infection, risk assessments; staff training; policies and procedures. An annual statement on infection control had not been completed. The manager told us an infection control audit had not been conducted either. This meant the provider could not be sure that their infection control procedures were working effectively.

We looked at the provider’s policy on infection control. We saw this was in the process of being reviewed as some information was out of date. For example, it did not refer to current guidance and contact details for advice had changed. The policy was supported by cleaning schedules which detailed the frequency of cleaning in each area of the home. Check sheets were used to confirm cleaning of shared areas had been completed by night staff in line with the schedules. However, we noted check sheets had not been completed for any of the bedrooms. The manager told us they did not have a cleaner as they had been unable to recruit one. This meant bedrooms had to be cleaned by care staff during the day, as and when they found the time to do this. Consequently, the provider was unable to demonstrate that cleaning had been completed in accordance with their policy.

The provider’s policy was for staff to receive refresher training on infection control every three years. We looked at records of staff training, which showed 12 of the 15 staff employed had not received such training within this period. We spoke with three members of staff; two could not recall when they last received training and one said they had never been trained in infection control. This meant staff may not have had up to date knowledge about how to prevent and control the spread of infection.