Smythe House

We found the following examples of good practice

Professionals were required to provide evidence of their testing and vaccination status. We were assured the service was following current Government guidance on visiting arrangements.

There were plentiful supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) throughout the home which included gloves, masks and aprons.

There were PPE stations located around the home and close to bedrooms where people were required to isolate.

Isolation, cohorting and zoning were being used to manage any potential spread of infection.

Staff participated in a daily and weekly testing regime prior to commencing work. All staff had a designated area to change their clothes before and on completion of their shift.

We saw various cleaning records which included regular high touch point cleaning to ensure the potential for cross infection had been reduced.

Policies, procedures and risk assessments related to COVID-19 were up to date which supported staff in keep people safe.

Staff had completed training in relation to infection control, and recently received training about the correct use of PPE including donning and doffing. Spot checks will be used to ensure staff adhere to the training provided.

Smythe House provides accommodation and care for seven people. This is a service that specialises in supporting adults with a range of complex needs and behaviours associated with Prader-Willi Syndrome (PWS). This is a genetic condition that predominantly manifests with early years onset of hyperphagia which is an abnormal unrelenting great desire for food driving the person towards excessive eating and, left unchecked, life threatening obesity. Other characteristics of PWS include, for example, learning disabilities that may range in severity. There were six people in residence when we inspected.

At our last inspection we rated the service 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 on-going 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.

The service met all relevant fundamental standards related to staff recruitment, training and the care people received. People’s care was regularly reviewed with them so they received the timely care they needed. 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.

Staff were friendly, kind and compassionate. They had insight into people’s capabilities and aspirations as well as their dependencies and need for support. They respected people's diverse individual preferences for the way they liked to receive their care and participate in activities they enjoyed.

The goal of the provider was to enable people with PWS to make positive life changes and the staff team were successful in to supporting each individual to achieve this.

People’s healthcare needs were met. They had access to community based healthcare professionals, such as GP’s and nurses, and had regular check-ups. They received timely medical attention when needed. Medicines were safely managed.

People's individual nutritional needs were assessed, monitored and met with appropriate guidance from healthcare professionals with expertise in PWS. People were supported to have a balanced diet and they had enough to eat and drink.

The provider and registered manager led staff by example and enabled the staff team to deliver individualised care that consistently achieved good outcomes for all people using the service. There were arrangements in place for the service to make sure that action was taken and lessons learned when things went wrong so that the quality of care across the service was improved.

A person told us that staff were there to help her when she had needed them. She said; 'staff here are all good'.

We spoke with the relatives of four people. They all told us that they had been fully satisfied with the care their relatives received.

One relative said; 'Staff are all excellent. They know how to work with my son'.

We observed the interaction between staff and people who lived in the home. This was carried out in a friendly way. We saw that staff were interested in asking people about what they had been doing activities that day.

This was a generally positive inspection. People we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the care provided. All their relatives we spoke with also said that they had no concerns. The essential standards we inspected were found to have been met.

There were some suggestions made; for the amount of paper work staff had to do, to be cut down so that they had more time to spend with people; for the holiday that had been largely provided by the company to be reinstated, and for front windows to be replaced by double glazed windows so that bedrooms were always warm enough for people.

A person told us that staff were helpful; 'staff will make time for me'.

Of the six people we spoke with, two people said that some staff were very friendly and helpful. However, other staff could sometimes be curt to them.

We spoke with five relatives. They all told us that the care staff provided was of a high standard.

One relative said; 'staff are friendly and professional'.

We received a small number of comments of concern: there was too much paperwork for staff to complete which took them a way from spending time with people.

Two people said that they were often not warm enough, as there were old windows to the front of the house that let in cold drafts.

One relative said that she thought there was too much pressure exerted by staff, for people to have relationships, rather than being friends.

This was generally a positive inspection. People living in the home and their relatives said that they were satisfied or mainly satisfied with the care they were supplied with. Most essential standards inspected were met. However, not all standards had been fully followed up from last inspection. Heating levels prevented some people from being warm. Also, that some issues identified in quality assurance checks had not been fully followed up.