Spen Court Care Home

We observed staff wearing PPE throughout the building. Designated areas were available for staff to change into their uniform which helped reduce the risk of spreading infection. Staff had received training in infection control and the use of PPE and were aware of their responsibilities.

A robust system was in place for managing visitors to the home. This included testing for COVID-19 on arrival, wearing appropriate PPE, taking temperatures and undertaking handwashing.

The premises were clean, hygienic and well ventilated. Staff were aware of the importance of regularly cleaning frequent touch points such as light switches, door handles and hand rails.

The home was engaged with the government COVID-19 testing scheme for people living in the home, their visitors and staff. Temperatures were regularly taken to check for symptoms of COVID-19. Signage was on display on arrival and around the home to make people, visitors and staff aware of their responsibilities related to reducing the risk of spreading infection.

Infection control audits were taking place. The registered manager completed a daily walkaround which included a focus on infection control.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We found the following examples of good practice.

• Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly.

• Staff had completed training to develop their knowledge on safe COVID-19 practices.

• People’s rooms and communal areas were visibly clean and hygienic.

• There were hand sanitising points and PPE available throughout the service with further PPE available in people’s room.

• The service had installed a visitors pod. This was a separate structure outside the premises which had two sealed parts separated by glass. This allowed people to safely see their relatives.

• The provider had an admission policy to safely admit new people into the service. This incorporated a virtual pre-admission assessment, a COVID-19 test before arriving at the service and the persons personal belongings were sanitised.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Avery Mews provides accommodation and personal care for up to 45 older people, including people who are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 45 people living at the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

We have made a recommendation about the living environment on the subject of dementia.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the care provided although these had not picked up some areas that required improvement as identified in our report.

People told us they received safe care and were happy living there. Safe recruitment procedures were in place. There were enough staff to take care of people and staff received appropriate training. Staff were supported by the registered manager and were receiving formal supervision and annual appraisal where they could discuss their ongoing development needs.

Staff sought people's consent before providing care and support. 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 support this practice. Staff training in key areas was up to date.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity and people were supported to be as independent as possible. Staff had built positive and caring relationships with people.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs and preferences. It was clear from our conversations with staff they knew people’s needs well. People knew how to make a complaint, although nobody we spoke with had.

People were supported to access healthcare professionals.

People’s feedback was sought regularly and acted upon. We received positive feedback about how the service was managed.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated ‘good’ (report published 11 November 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned for future dates.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

The home is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to 45 older people, including people who are living with dementia. On the day of the inspection there were 44 people living at the home. The home is situated in Heckmondwike, in West Yorkshire. The premises had two floors; the ground floor accommodation had easy access to an enclosed garden and the first floor was accessed by a passenger lift. People had single bedrooms with an en-suite shower and toilet, and there was a communal bathroom on each floor.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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.

On the day of the inspection we saw that there were sufficient numbers of staff employed to meet people's individual needs. New staff had been employed following the home’s recruitment and selection policies and this ensured that only people considered suitable to work with vulnerable people worked at Avery Mews.

People were protected from the risks of harm or abuse because there were effective systems in place to manage any safeguarding concerns. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of protecting people from the risk of harm. There was evidence that the registered provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The registered manager recorded and monitored accidents and incidents so that any patterns that might be emerging could be identified and the risk of reoccurrence could be reduced.

We checked medication systems and saw that medicines were stored, recorded and administered safely. Staff who had responsibility for the administration of medication had received appropriate training.

People who lived at the home and relatives told us that staff were very caring and that they respected people’s privacy and dignity. We saw that there were positive relationships between people who lived at the home, relatives and staff. People's care plans recorded information about their individual care and support needs and their life history, which helped staff to have an in-depth knowledge of people’s needs .

A variety of activities were provided to meet people’s individual needs, and people were encouraged to take part. People’s family and friends were made welcome at the home.

People told us that they were very happy with the food provided. We observed that people’s nutritional needs had been assessed and individual food and drink requirements were met. Efforts had been made to make meal times and morning and afternoon snacks an ‘occasion’.

The premises were clean, hygienic and well maintained. We saw there was appropriate signage, decoration and prompts to assist people in finding their way around the home.

There were systems in place to seek feedback from people who lived at the home, relatives and staff. People told us they were confident their complaints and concerns would be listened to. Any complaints made to the home had been investigated and appropriate action had been taken to make any required improvements.

Staff told us that they were well supported by the registered manager and senior staff group. They confirmed that they received induction training when they were new in post and told us that they were happy with the training provided for them.

Staff, people who lived at the home and a relative told us that the home was well managed. Quality audits undertaken by the registered manager and senior managers were designed to identify that systems at the home were protecting people’s safety and well-being. When quality audits had identified that improvements needed to be made, there was a record of when actions had been completed.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected.

We used the information to answer the five key questions we always ask;

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in an environment that was clean and hygienic.

There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people who lived at the home.

One person's relative told us, 'They seem to have plenty of staff around and they're always friendly. He's enjoying the meals.'

Is the service effective?

We looked at four people's care files we saw their individual needs were assessed thoroughly and care and support was developed from an assessment of their needs.

One person's care records showed they were receiving care and treatment for a pressure sore. They had also lost weight in recent months. Their care records showed the pressure sores were now healing and they were gaining weight.

People were provided with a healthy nutritionally balanced diet to support their health, this protected people from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff who obviously knew people well. We saw that care assistants were patient and encouraging when supporting people.

The manager told us, 'The care here is 150%, I really can say that.'

The two relatives of people we spoke with all told us they were very happy with the care provided at the home. One person's relative told us, 'He seems to like it here and he's doing better than he was at home.' 'The staff here are always friendly. He's enjoying the meals.' Another relative told us "The care is good although they could do with more one to one activities."

The care assistants we spoke with told us they felt confident the service provided to people who lived at the home was good and they had a good staff team. When we looked around the home we saw people's bedrooms had been personalised and contained personal items such as family photographs.

Is the service responsive?

We saw from the care records that people's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. Records confirmed people's preferences, interests and life histories had been recorded. The care, treatment and support provided at the home met their individual needs.

People had access to appropriate activities and were supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.

Is the service well-led?

The home manager has held the position for a number of years since the home opened. Staff we spoke with told us they felt well-supported by the home manager. One of them said, 'The manager is really lovely; very approachable and encouraging.'