St Margaret's House

We found the following examples of good practice.

The home had a designated area for safe visiting to take place. People were asked to name one person for indoor visiting. Visitors pre-booked appointments by telephone and on arrival to the home had a series of checks completed which included: a health declaration, temperature check and a rapid COVID-19 test.

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was available in good supply at the home for the staff and visitors. Staff demonstrated their awareness for appropriate PPE usage and there was a separate area for staff to put on their PPE prior to starting their work.

Visitors, such as Health and Social Care Professionals, were also asked to undertake a series of checks in line with COVID-19 current guidance.

In line with guidelines, people using the service and the staff were part of a regular COVID-19 testing regime. The Registered Manager told us that in response to COVID-19 staff were encouraged to take additional breaks where needed.

The Registered Manager told us that there was an increased cleaning regime in response to COVID-19 which staff and people followed. Windows were opened to promote good ventilation.

At the last inspection on 13 October 2015 the service was rated as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. 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.

Systems were in place to manage risks to people living at the service and to keep them safe. This included assisting people safely with eating and drinking.

People’s needs were assessed, so that their care was planned and delivered in a consistent way. The management staff and care staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and knew their care needs well. Staff offered people choices and these were respected and actioned by staff.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to safely assist and support people. The recruitment and selection procedure ensured that only suitable staff were recruited to work with people living at the service

People experienced a good quality of life because staff received training that gave them the right skills and knowledge to meet their needs. People were supported and assisted with their daily routines, shopping and accessing places of their choice in the community.

The registered manager and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have choice and control over their lives as much as possible. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People received appropriate support to maintain a healthy diet and be able to choose meals they preferred. People had access to a range of health care professionals when they needed them.

Staff were clear about the values of the service in relation to providing people with kind and supportive care. People’s dignity and privacy was promoted.

The provider had processes in place to assess, monitor and improve the service. People had been consulted about how they wished their care to be delivered and their choices had been respected. People, their relatives and staff were provided with the opportunity to give their feedback about the quality of the service provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

As part of this inspection we spoke with two people who used the service, and three members of staff. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the service which included two care plans, daily records, policies and procedures, staff records and quality assurance monitoring records.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary, please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us that they were very satisfied with how their individual support and care needs had been safely met. They also indicated to us that they felt safe because they liked the members of staff.

Health and safety risk assessments had been carried out and measures were in place to minimise the risks, to keep people safe.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care services. While no applications had needed to be submitted, relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

People were protected from harm because there were procedures in place to make sure that the equipment used was safe.

There was a sufficient number of trained staff employed to provide people with consistent, safe and appropriate support and care.

Is the service effective?

People's choices and decisions about their support and care had been respected and valued. People told us that they were actively consulted about their support, care and their individual preferences, and these were respected.

A range of food options was available to meet people's individual dietary likes and dislikes. There were effective procedures in place to monitor people's food and drink intake. People had sufficient amounts to eat and drink to help keep them healthy.

The standard of support and care had enabled people to live independently at home.

Is the service caring?

People who we spoke with said that they liked the members of staff and how they were being looked after. We saw that they were looked after by caring and respectful members of staff.

Staff had supported people to protect them from social isolation. In addition, people had the support they needed to maintain and promote their individual levels of independence.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs, choices and personal preferences had been assessed and acted on. Members of staff had respected people's choices and decisions about their support and care.

People's individual social and health care needs had been responded to. People had been enabled to stay independently living at home because their support and care needs had been met.

Is the service well-led?

There were monitoring and reviewing systems in place in relation to the management of staff. This was to ensure that people had been provided with safe and appropriate care.

Members of staff told us that they had the training and support from the manager to safely do their job, which they said they had enjoyed.

Members of staff and people who used the service had been enabled to make suggestions and actions had been taken to improve the standard and quality of the service provided at St Margaret's House.

We reviewed support plans for three out of the seven people who used the service and saw detailed risk assessments for fire evacuation. We also saw profiles for each of the people who used the service which included a brief summary of the actions to take in the event of an emergency.

We reviewed support plans for three of the seven people who used the service and saw well documented support plans and risk assessments. However, we spoke with the registered manager regarding concerns we had about procedures for dealing with foreseeable emergencies.

We asked people who used the service if we could see their bedrooms; four out of seven people showed us their bedrooms and told us that they liked their own rooms. One person told us, 'It's the best room.'

We reviewed two staff files and found that appropriate checks were undertaken before people could start work.

We found that all records, including support plans, staff files and records in relation to the maintenance of the building were kept up-to-date and accurate. Records were stored securely and kept for an appropriate amount of time before being destroyed securely.

People that we spoke with during our inspection visit on 29 January 2013 said they were positive and satisfied with the care and support they received whilst living in the home. One person commented that, 'The staff are very helpful and help me during the day.' People said that they had a keyworker to help them organise their week and any events that were coming up. People felt that they could talk to the manager and staff whenever they wanted to sort out any problems or concerns.

Care and support was being regularly reviewed to ensure that peoples' needs were being met. There was evidence of people's involvement in the planning of their care and support.

Staff were trained in the safe administration of medication and records of administration were accurately completed.

Staff received regular supervision. Ongoing training sessions were in place that ensured staff delivered safe care and support to people.

The home had an effective system to deal with complaints that people may wish to raise. People in the home told us they talked with staff regularly and any concerns were discussed and resolved