Archived: Tulips Care Home I

Tulips Care Home I is a residential care home providing personal care for up to four adults with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection three people were living in the service.

We found the following examples of good practice:

The provider followed best practice guidance to ensure visitors to the home did not introduce and spread COVID-19. Information and instructions for visitors were communicated before visits and displayed in the care home. Staff were adhering to personal protective equipment (PPE) and social distancing guidance.

People were supported to see their visitors, or when this was not possible, they were supported to speak to their families on the phone or via video call. The provider developed newsletters detailing events within the home to people's families.

The provider had an infection prevention and control (IPC) policy that outlined the requirement for isolation rooms for people infected with COVID-19 for people admitted to the home from the hospital or the community.

The provider had ensured staff who were more vulnerable to COVID-19 had a risk assessment in place, and where it was not safe for staff to be at work, they had a furlough scheme in place to protect staff and people.

A COVID-19 vaccination letter was given to the residents to explain the vaccine and IPC requirements.

Tulips Care Home I is a small residential care home providing personal care for up to four adults with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection three people were living in the service.

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

People were supported and encouraged to access a range of activities and events to improve their health and wellbeing and help to reduce social isolation. People were positive about the friendships they had made with people in the provider’s other two homes, one next door and one across the road.

People were supported to remain in contact with their family and friends. People’s relatives were kept updated with their family member’s health and wellbeing, being encouraged to be involved in their daily lives.

People and their relatives were positive about the friendly and caring attitude of the staff team. One person said, “I had a lovely peaceful Christmas and the staff looked after me really well.”

People were involved in how they received their care and staff worked closely with them to help their understanding of how they wanted to be supported.

Staff involved people in decisions about their care, having regular discussions and resident meetings to find out how they wanted to be supported. Due to the size of the service, some staff had worked with people for a long time, knew them well and how they liked to be cared for.

People were supported to a range of healthcare appointments to ensure their healthcare needs were met, with staff recording moods and behaviours, including any advice given for staff to be aware of. We saw staff had contacted the necessary health and social care professionals when people’s health and wellbeing had deteriorated.

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.

The provider had systems in place to ensure improvements could be made where needed, the home kept people safe from harm and people had an opportunity to feedback about the service they received.

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 15 June 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, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service maintained an overall rating of Good.

The service had a registered manager in place.

People continued to receive support in taking their medicines safely and in line with good practice. Records showed staff administered, recorded and stored people’s medicines correctly and staff were aware of the correct action to take should errors in with medicines be identified.

The service continued to protect people against the risk of harm and abuse. Staff received on-going safeguarding training and were able to identify different types of abuse and how to report their concerns. Records detailed how people were protected against the risk of avoidable harm, through risk assessments. Staff confirmed risk assessments gave them guidance on how to support people when faced with identified risks. Risk assessments were reviewed regularly to reflect people’s changing needs.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. At the time of the inspection there was one person subject to a DoLS authorisation.

People continued to be supported to make decisions and choices about the care and support they received. People confirmed they were given choices and had their choices respected and adhered to. People gave consent to care and treatment prior to it being delivered. The service continued to support people to access sufficient amounts of food and drink that met their nutritional needs and preferences. People were encouraged to plan and make their meals to encourage their independence and gain life skills. People’s health and wellbeing was monitored by staff and people were supported to access health care services as and when needed.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet their needs. Staff employed by the service underwent a comprehensive employment and induction programme and had their competencies assessed. Staff continually reflected on their working practices through supervisions and annual appraisals.

The service maintained an ethos that was shared by staff to empower people through compassion and support. People were supported to maintain and enhance their independence. People continued to be supported by staff that respected their respected their privacy and maintained their dignity.

People’s care plans were person centred and detailed their preferences, health care and medical needs. Care plans were reviewed frequently by staff and changes made to reflect their needs were shared with staff. People were encouraged and supported to participate in activities that reflected their preferences. Activities provided encouraged rehabilitation and access to the local community. Staff were aware of the risks of social isolation and the detrimental effect this could have in people’s mental health.

The service continued to ensure people were aware of how to raise concerns and complaints. People confirmed they knew how to raise a complaint and felt these would be managed responsively and in-line with the provider’s guidelines and policy.

The service continued to seek feedback from people, their relatives and staff about the quality of the service provision. Annual quality assurance questionnaires were reviewed and action taken to address any concerns identified swiftly. Staff completed audits of the service which looked at the safety of the environment, medicine management, training and records.

We found that people were involved in their care planning and confirmed they received the care and support they needed. We were told by one person that 'The staff ask us questions, we answer them, they write it down and then do it.' People were supported to access other health care professionals and social care services they needed.

During the visit we observed staff interact with the people who lived there and saw they were caring and respectful at all times.

The grounds and premises were well maintained. Systems were in place to ensure the premises met safety standards, such as fire regulations, electrical and gas testing and health and safety checks.

We saw there were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff on duty to meet people's care and support needs. Staff were supported by senior personnel.

We saw evidence that the provider regularly monitored the quality of the service provided. We were shown quality assurance audits and we noted that risk and needs assessments were updated and reviewed on a regular basis.