We carried out a review of the data available to us about Poplars on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Poplars, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
• Visitors were required to complete a Covid -19 screening tool prior to entering the home to make sure they could visit safely during the pandemic. This included recording their temperature, sanitising their hands and completing a questionnaire to identify if the visitor had had recent contact with a person with COVID-19.
• Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) including masks, aprons and gloves were available at the entrance for visitors to use to keep people and themselves safe.
• The provider had taken action to prevent the transmission of infection. Action included preventing staff from working across a number of sites and also considering safe ways for staff to travel to and from work.
• The provider had purchased additional laptops to support people to keep in touch with their loved ones. A 'visiting pod' had been ordered to facilitate safe visits in line with current guidance.
• People and staff were supported to maintain their wellbeing. Gym equipment had been purchased to help people remain active whilst at home. Staff had regular discussions with their managers about the pandemic and any concerns they have.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The Care Service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion.
At our last inspection on 24 May 2016 we rated the service as overall ‘good’. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
People continued to receive a safe service. Staff were vigilant to the risks people faced and took prompt action to address any concerns. People were supported to take positive risks to increase their confidence and independence. People received their medication at the right time and there were enough staff on duty to provide the support people needed.
People continued to receive an effective service. People’s consent was obtained before care and support was delivered and staff supported people to make decisions that were in their best interests when they needed help to do so. Staff received specific training to help them carry out their role more effectively. People’s health was promoted as staff worked actively with healthcare professionals.
People continued to receive a caring service. Relationships between people and staff were respectful and based on trust and openness. Relatives were very happy with the quality of the service their loved ones were receiving and were made to feel welcome when they visited. People’s independence was promoted and encouraged wherever possible.
People continued to receive a responsive service. People’s support was delivered in line with their wishes and people had access to activities in the local community which were important and meaningful to them. People had the opportunity to express their wishes and goals and staff supported people to achieve them.
The service continued to be well-led. People, staff and relatives were all happy with the way the service was managed. The registered manager was a visible presence in the home and led the staff team to create a person centred culture in the home. Checks and audits were effective in highlighting areas for improvement and actions that were required were completed promptly.
The service has a registered manager who was present throughout the inspection. 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. The provider had recently recruited a new manager who would apply to become the new registered manager for the service once all their training was carried out. We spoke with the new manager throughout the inspection.
People living at the home told us they felt safe. We saw that there were sufficient staff available to meet people’s requests for support promptly. The provider had ensured that appropriate checks were carried out on any new staff recruited to ensure they were suitable to support people living at the home. Any identified risks posed to people had been analysed and steps put in place to minimise the risk for the person.
People received appropriate support with their medicines. Daily medicines were given safely although we found there was some improvement needed with the management of medicines that were given on an ‘as required basis’.
Staff told us they had received sufficient training to carry out their role effectively. Most staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and described how they supported people to make choices.
We saw that people were supported to develop independence with meal preparation and had been supported to maintain their nutrition and hydration needs. Regular healthcare was planned and accessed and staff had information about how to support people in different healthcare settings.
People told us they felt cared for. Relatives were happy with the care their relative received and were complimentary about the staff team. People were involved in developing their own plan of care to ensure they received care how they wished. Staff were caring in their approach and knew people they supported well.
People had access to activities they enjoyed on a daily basis. These were planned with the person to ensure known interests and hobbies could be followed. The range of activities available included resources that were available in the home and accessing external resources in the community.
Care was reviewed with people on a regular basis to monitor if it still met the person’s needs.
People were supported to maintain contact with people who were important to them including visiting family members or speaking to them on the phone. Whilst people were happy with the service they were receiving they told us they knew how to raise concerns should they need to.
People and their relatives were happy with how the service was managed. Staff felt supported in their role and involved in developing the service. Quality monitoring systems were in place that ensured the quality and safety of the service were kept under review.
visit.
We spoke with three members of staff, three of the people who lived in the home and the manager. We observed how people were supported and how staff interacted with them to get a view of the care they experienced.
We considered all of the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes that we inspected. Below is a summary of what we found. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
We observed the interactions between the people who lived in the home and staff. People looked at ease in their surroundings. Staff spoke with them in a calm and friendly manner. There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people who lived at the home.
We saw there were systems in place to ensure people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.
Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes and hospitals. No applications had been made. The manager understood how this legislation applied to people and protected their rights.
We found that equipment was serviced at regular intervals to ensure it was safe to use.
Is the service effective?
It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of people's care and support needs and that they knew them well. We saw that people's support plans and risk assessments were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that their changing needs were planned for.
We saw that actions were taken to protect people's health as needed. The staff and managers of the home worked with other agencies and health care providers to ensure people's changing needs were met.
People living in the home were encouraged to maintain and develop their independence.
We saw people were involved in menu planning. People received the foods they liked and staff encouraged healthy eating where possible.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw support workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people.
People appeared settled and happy. The people that lived in the home that we spoke with told us they liked living there. One person told us, 'I never want to leave.'
We saw that people were supported to take part in a range of activities of their choice. This ensured people led fulfilling lives. People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
People using the service, their relatives, friends and other people involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. The suggestions and ideas voiced by people were followed up.
Is the service responsive?
We saw people's care plans and risk assessments were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure their changing needs were planned for.
Records confirmed people's preferences, interests, and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. People had access to a range activities and were able to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.
Records showed that staff responded quickly to changes in people's health. We saw people had access to a variety of health care providers to ensure their needs could be met.
Is the service well-led?
The registered manager had been in post for a number of years. The manager was experienced and caring and provided good leadership based on how best to meet the needs of people in an individualised way.
There were systems in place so that people who lived in the home could share their views about how the home was run. The manager was able to give us examples of actions taken and changes that had been made as a result of listening to the people living in the home.
There were systems in place to ensure the quality of the service was regularly assessed and monitored.
We spoke with three people who used the service. They said 'I like all the staff, they are friendly and I do lots of nice things'. Another person said 'it was a very nice home'. A third person told us that they were supported to see their family.
We spoke with two members of staff they said they told us that they were 'Quite satisfied with what happens here (at the home), overall it is reasonably good' and 'We try our best to facilitate choice'. Another staff member told us 'We get on well with each other and the service users'.
Every person had individual plans of care to meet their current needs. Staff were familiar with the care needs of the people who lived there. Each person had their own room which was private and personal to them. People told us about their privacy being respected and being given choices about their care.
Policies and procedures were in place for complaints and safeguarding adults at risk. Easy read formats were also available. Systems were also in place to ensure staffing levels met the needs of people and that any emergency situations could be addressed.
We observed staff support and communicate with people in a considerate and respectful way.
On the day of our visit all the people who used the service were at home because of the poor weather. The weather had caused some disruption to their usual activities and routines. Despite the change in their routines people appeared relaxed and at ease. The people who used the service told us about the activities they normally did. One person explained that they usually went to college but it was closed because of the snow.
Comments we received from people who used the service included, 'I would like to stay here forever' and 'I like it here, all the staff are really nice.'
People were involved in decisions about their care and treatment and staff understood and supported them with their needs. Records relating to people's needs and the general management of the home were generally in good order and supported the smooth running of the home.
We found the home clean and tidy and people who used the service told us that they helped to keep it that way. Staff felt supported and received the training they needed to support people at the home.
supported people throughout the time of our visit. We heard people being spoken to in a friendly and kind way and the atmosphere in the home was pleasant and lively.
People who lived at the home told us they were happy there. People told us 'Staff look after me' and 'There is nothing I do not like about the home, I like everything here.' They told us they felt safe living in the home.
We spoke with a relative of a person living in the home. They told us they were very happy with the care that their relative received. They told us 'Top class home, I have no concerns.'
People who lived at the home told us there were always enough care workers on duty. A relative told us ' There are always plenty of staff.'
People and their relatives told us they were asked to give their opinions and feedback on the care provided. They said they were confident that the registered manager would listen to their opinions and would deal with any problems.