The Evergreens

We found the following examples of good practice.

Up to the date of the inspection, no-one living at the service had had COVID-19.

The premises looked and smelt clean and hygienic. A person living at the home said the premises were always kept “immaculate”. The cleaners worked daily to a cleaning schedule that ensured all areas were cleaned regularly, and that there was periodic deep cleaning of different parts of the building.

There were strict procedures for visitors to reduce the risk of infection coming in. These included taking their temperature and obtaining proof of a negative lateral flow test result that day. Professionals and contractors had to show proof of full vaccination against coronavirus. People’s visitors were also encouraged to be vaccinated.

There were also procedures for obtaining test results before and after people moved in, to reduce the risk they were bringing infection into the service.

There were ample supplies of masks, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser. Staff used these appropriately. A person who used the service confirmed staff always wore masks.

There were regular coronavirus testing regimes for staff and for people living at the service.

The registered manager and deputy manager kept abreast of current government guidance about coronavirus and COVID-19. They cascaded information to staff as necessary.

In line with government guidance, staff who showed possible symptoms of infection while at work were sent home. They could return to work on day seven, provided they had negative lateral flow test results that day and on the two preceding days. Government funding was used to meet full sick pay while they were off work.

People’s experience of using this service:

People received safe care and support living at The Evergreens. This was because the staff had received training in safeguarding adults and the service worked with health care professionals in meeting goals agreed and developed with people. The registered manager had also taken steps to maintain a safe environment for people.

The service employed sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s assessed needs and the staff employed had been subject to robust recruitment procedures. Staff received appropriate training and supervision to support them in working with people living at the home.

Medicines were managed safely with staff receiving appropriate training.

People’s needs had been assessed and care plans developed with people’s consent. Some records had not been updated as quickly as required when people’s needs changed. This was an area for improvement.

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’s dietary needs were met and people were very satisfied with the standards of food provided.

People were highly complementary of the staff saying they were supportive, kind and respectful.

People were provided with a range of activities both within the home and in the local community.

The home was well led with good leadership from the registered manager and directors.

Rating at last inspection: When the service was last fully inspected we rated the service as Good (reported published 17 October 2016).

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

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until the next inspection. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

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

The Evergreens provides residential care for up to 25 older people. There were 23 people living in the home at the time of our visit.

There was a registered manager who had been in post for five years. 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 had opportunity to engage in activities. There were in-house activities organised by staff which included quizzes, music and games. As well as this external activities and entertainers visited the home. For example caring canines, musician and a local military museum. We saw activities were recorded however there were some gaps in recording the month of our visit. The registered manager told us activities had taken place and it was a recording issue which they would address with staff.

The service was well led. People, relatives and staff told us management were accessible and supportive. There were quality monitoring systems in place. This meant that care and support people received was regularly audited and areas for improvement identified. The registered manager was proactive in monitoring the service and investigated and took actions when there was a risk of the quality of the service being compromised. For example a new supplier had been organised when a previous one had made an error.

Staff were aware of what constitutes abuse and the actions they should take if they suspected abuse. The registered manager regularly checked with staff how they would respond to concerns about practice and had discussions with them. Relevant checks were undertaken before new staff started work. For example checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) to ensure they were safe to work with vulnerable adults.

People told us they felt safe living in the home and were confident that staff had the right skills and training to support them appropriately. People were involved in planning their care which commenced with a pre-admission assessment. People’s risks were assessed and plans developed to ensure care was provided safely. A variety of risks were assessed which included risk of skin damage and risk of falls. When a risk was identified there was a plan to manage the risk. There were enough staff to support people safely and people told us there were staff when they needed them. The registered manager told us they selected staff who had a positive attitude towards caring.

Medicines were managed safely. Medicine Administration Records (MAR) were signed to indicate that people’s prescribed medicine had been given. Medicines were stored securely and at the correct temperatures. There were regular checks of medicines and MAR to ensure that any errors were identified promptly.

Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (2005) and how it applied to their work. Appropriate mental capacity assessments had been carried out. Where some people were unable to consent to being in a care home appropriate applications for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLs) had been made. Staff were able to explain to us how they provided people with choices and how they encouraged people to make their own decisions. People confirmed staff provided choices and treated them with dignity.

People and their families told us staff were caring. People explained they experienced staff kindness in the simple daily activities, such as knowing their preferred time to get up, supporting them and bringing them a cup of tea. A relative described being welcomed by staff and being made to feel special. Staff knew people well and recognised when they were feeling unwell or anxious.

We found that people's care was based on an individual needs assessment and planned and delivered to ensure their safety and welfare. A person told us "I love it here - everything is very nice, staff are happy to see you, I am very contented". A relative told us "they (staff) get to know my relative personally, I have seen their care plan and been asked for my input".

People told us that they felt safe in the home and a person's relative said "the home is very secure I have no concerns about safety".

We found that people were supported by staff who knew how to identify abuse and what to do if they had any concerns.

People we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the care they received from staff. We found that staff were supported and trained to deliver care and treatment safely in line with the relevant standards.

We found that the provider had an effective system in place to ensure that the service was provided safely for people who used, worked or visited the service. A person's relative told us "the home has a friendly atmosphere, relaxed and open - we found our relative was treated with respect and dignity - staff are professional and caring".

'In this report one of the named registered managers was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time'.