Robert Harvey House

We found the following examples of good practice.

The impact of the pandemic on people’s wellbeing was regularly reviewed and care plans were updated to reflect people’s changing needs. For example, a review had identified a person had lost weight since their loved ones were unable to visit. Scheduled video calls during mealtimes took place to improve the person’s dining experience and encourage them to eat.

The home had a visiting pod that loved ones could access from the garden. There was a booking system available and cleaning regime for the area. This meant people could enjoy visits in a safe and comfortable environment.

Staff used handheld devices to update people's care records. The devices also supported socially distanced staff handovers. This minimised the spread of infection.

Separate designated rooms were used for the two types of staff COVID-19 tests. The rooms were organised to process staff testing efficiently and safely. The rooms were ventilated and signage reminded staff about the correct use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and how to sanitise the area.

The provider ensured people were assessed to be able to self-isolate before moving to the home. This minimised the risk of infection being spread as a result of people coming to the service.

Robert Harvey House currently provides nursing care and support for a maximum of 52 people who live with dementia, physical disability, alcohol/drug dependency or mental health conditions. At the time of our inspection 46 people were living at the home. Accommodation is provided over two floors. There are lounges, rest spaces, dining areas and a themed room. Every bedroom was bright and spacious with en-suite facilities.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

During this the inspection, we found the provider had thoughtfully designed the building with excellent facilities and staff demonstrated strong values that promoted person centred care. We corroborated this when we toured the building and talked with people and relatives.

People who lived at the home were kept safe. Staff were trained to identify signs of abuse and supported by the provider’s processes to keep people safe. Potential risks to people had been identified and appropriate measures had been put in place to reduce the risk of harm. People were supported by sufficient numbers of suitable staff that had been recruited safely. People received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff worked within a highly trained team and were given the time to support people. This ensured people received care and support from staff that had effective skills to consistently meet people’s needs. Staff received regular supervision and appraisals, providing them with appropriate support to carry out their roles. We saw staff treated people as individuals, offering them choices whenever they engaged with people. Staff sought people's consent for care and treatment and ensured people were supported to make as many decisions as possible. Where people lacked the mental capacity to make informed decisions about their care, relatives, friends and relevant professionals were involved in best interest's decision making. Therefore, the provider had acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Food standards were to a very high level. When we discussed the quality of meals with people and their relatives, they said food was of a very high quality. The kitchen staff ensured there were effective processes in place to support people with their nutritional needs. People spoke positively about the choice of food available. Staff supported people who were living with dementia to eat and drink to maintain their health and wellbeing in a caring and sensitive way. People were supported to access health care professionals to ensure that their health care needs would be continuously met.

People and relatives told us that staff were kind, caring and friendly and treated people with dignity and respect. The atmosphere around the home was tranquil, warm and welcoming. People were relaxed and staff supported people in a dignified way. People and relatives told us they were well supported by staff and the management team and encouraged to maintain relationships that were important to people. People’s health care needs were assessed and regularly reviewed. Relatives told us the management team were good at keeping them informed about their family member’s care. People were supported by a dedicated activities team that provided excellent opportunities to optimise people’s social and stimulation requirements. People and their relatives told us they were confident that if they had any concerns or complaints they would be listened to and matters addressed quickly.

The management team had a number of systems to gain feedback from people living at the home, relatives and visitors. This included resident/relative meetings, satisfaction questionnaires, regular reviews and a suggestion box. People, their relatives, staff and visiting professionals told us the home was well organised and ‘exceptionally’ well-led. We saw that the management of the service was stable and that the registered manager and care manager carried out regular audits. The provider had established management systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible and to participate in a range of activities and outings. The activities programme showed several events each day. One person told us, 'There is always something to do.'

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

People were cared for by staff who were qualified, skilled and experienced to meet people's needs. The majority of staff held a care qualification. There were enough staff on duty to meet people's care and welfare needs.

People were able to make complaints. The service supported people to make complaints. Complaints were investigated and resolved to the complainant's satisfaction.

The home is currently undergoing a full scale refurbishment, due for completion at the end of the year.

Observations of care delivered, documentation and discussions with people demonstrated that care and treatment was delivered in line with relevant research and guidance, and there were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.

On the day of the inspection we spoke to four people and they told us that they felt happy in the home. One person commented: 'This is my home.' Another person said, 'The staff are like my friends, kind and natural'.

Nutrition and hydration needs were sufficiently met to cater for all the people within the home. People felt they had enough choice regarding their food and told us they enjoyed the meals.

We spoke to three visitors who told us that they were happy with the care delivered within the home. They also felt welcomed and able to share their views with staff about their relatives and about the home generally.

Staff were suitably qualified and skilled and were supported with their professional development, which meant they felt confident to care for the peoples' needs.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.