The Regard Partnership Limited - Grove Road

We found the following examples of good practice:

The provider was following best practice guidance to prevent visitors to the home spreading COVID-19 infection. The provider kept in touch with family members and people's friends through regular emails and phone calls.

The provider had arrangements for visitors to meet with people virtually through video conferencing and physically in visiting areas. All visitors were asked to sign a COVID-19 declaration on arrival, and had their temperature checked. Visitors had to undertake a lateral flow test on the day of visit or on arrival and visiting professionals had to show proof of negative lateral flow test taken on the day of the visit; in addition, they had to show proof of their COVID-19 vaccination.

The provider informed us that staff used Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) including gloves, mask and apron when providing personal care and when social distancing was not possible.

All COVID-19 positive service users were isolated according to Public Health England Guidelines.

The provider had an admissions process in place. The provider informed us that all new service users had to have undertaken a COVID-19 PCR test 24 to 48 hours prior to being admitted into the service and on admission they perform a lateral flow test and were usually isolated for 14 days.

Our observations during the inspection confirmed staff were adhering to PPE and social distancing guidance.

The provider informed us that all staff had received the infection prevention and control and personal protective equipment training.

The provider informed us that all staff undertook weekly COVID-19 PCR tests and thrice weekly lateral flow tests. The provider confirmed us that all staff working at the service had received the first two doses of COVID-19 vaccine. The provider informed us five of the six residents had received three doses of COVID-19 vaccine and one resident was medically exempt. The provider maintained a testing register for staff and service users.

The provider had ensured staff who were more vulnerable to COVID-19 had been assessed and plans were in place to minimise the risk to their health and wellbeing. The provider informed us that they had an open-door policy and had regular meetings with staff. The care home manager indicated they were supported by the regional manager and their local care team.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The Regard Partnership – Grove Road is a residential care home providing personal care to people with a learning disability. The service can support up to nine people in one adapted building. Eight people were living at the service at the time of our inspection.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People and their relatives spoke positively about the experiences at the service. One person told us, “I like it here. The staff are nice.” A relative said, “As parents we have been consistently happy for a long time. There are always plenty of activities. I’ve always been happy about that.”

People were protected from avoidable harm because staff followed the guidance in risk assessments and risk management plans to keep them safe. Staff stored people’s medicines securely and administered them in line with the prescriber’s instructions. Where safeguarding concerns had arisen, the provider took appropriate action and learned lessons from the incident. There were enough suitable staff to support people at all times.

The staff who delivered care and support to people were supervised and trained. People consented to the care they received. Staff supported people to eat well and to stay healthy. There were detailed assessments of people’s needs in place which were person centred.

Staff were empathetic and compassionate and supported people to make choices and decisions.

People and staff shared positive relationships which had been established and maintained over time. Staff treated people respectfully and respected their privacy. Relatives felt welcome when they visited the service.

Staff delivered care and support in line with people’s needs and preferences which were detailed in care records. A range of activities were available for people to participate in and people were supported to follow their individual interests. People’s bedrooms were personalised. A clear complaints procedure was in place. The service was capable of continuing to provide support to people if they required end of life care.

The service continued to be well-led. People, relatives and staff were continually consulted about improving the service. The registered manager coordinated quality audit checks and ensured on-going partnership working with external agencies and professionals.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The service applied the principles and values the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

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

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 13 February 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

When we last visited the home on 22 October 2014 the service was meeting the regulations we looked at and was rated ‘Good’ overall and in all five key questions.

At this inspection we found the service continued to be rated ‘Good’.

People’s medicines were managed safely and they received them as per their prescriptions. Staff understood how to respond if they suspected people were being abused to keep them safe and had received training in this. The registered manager managed risks to people and the premises and equipment well. The provider used robust recruitment procedures to ensure staff were suitable to work with people. There were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs.

Staff were well supported by the provider as they received the training, supervision and appraisal they needed to undertake their roles. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and where people needed to be deprived of their liberty the registered manager applied for authorisations to keep people safe under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) appropriately. People received choice in food and drink they received. People had access to the healthcare services they required to maintain their health.

Staff knew the people they were supporting well including the best ways to communicate with them. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and encouraged them to be as independent as they wanted to be. Staff encouraged people to make decisions and plan their own care.

Each person had an individualised activity programme which meant they took part in activities they were interested in. People had care plans which they were involved in developing and which were reviewed regularly to keep them an accurate tool for staff to rely on in caring for people. A complaints procedure was in place and complaints were used to improve the service.

A registered manager was in place who had a good understanding of their role and responsibilities, as did staff. Thorough quality audits were in place to assess, monitor and improve the service. The registered manager and provider encouraged communication with people, relatives and staff well through a variety of means such as meetings, questionnaires and newsletters.

The provider continued to meet all the fundamental standards at this location. Further information is in the detailed findings section of the report.

We saw that staff spoke to people in a kind and courteous manner, addressing them politely and using their preferred names. Staff knocked before entering people's bedrooms demonstrating respect for their privacy.

We saw records of four people who used the service which were accurate and up to date. We saw that where it had been possible people had signed their care plans giving consent for their care and other support required. We observed positive interactions between staff and people who used the service.

We saw that people looked well cared for and they appeared relaxed and happy. The premises were welcoming and had a number of communal areas for people to use. All bedrooms were single occupancy. We saw three bedrooms and noted that these were in good decorative order.

Staff told us there were good training opportunities; they enjoyed their work and felt well supported by the manager. We reviewed staff training records and they were up to date.

The manager told us that there were regular reviews of people's care plans on a monthly basis. We saw up to date examples of these in pictorial presentation which were signed by the person who used the service and their nominated key worker.

The staff monitored and checked that the quality of services provided met the expected standards. This included involving relatives and people who used the service.