Archived: Southwood House

We found the following examples of good practice.

• Southwood House ensured current government guidelines in relation to COVID-19 were being followed by staff and visitors to reduce the risk of infection to people living at the home. This included comprehensive checks for visitors on arrival.

• Detailed and up-to-date policies and procedures were in place. There were several infection control audits that had been completed with actions immediately addressed.

• Staff had received training in the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and we saw this was

accessible throughout the home and staff used it in accordance with the most up to date guidance.

People’s experience of using this service:

People felt safe and happy living at Southwood House. Staff understood how to keep people safe from harm or abuse and understood their responsibility to raise concerns if they were to witness poor or abusive practice.

Medicine was administered safely, and records kept were accurate. Risk assessments were in place to manage risks within people’s lives.

Staff recruitment procedures ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out.

People told us that they received the support they required. Staff were trained to support people effectively. Staff were supervised and felt confident in their roles.

People were supported by staff to maintain adequate food and fluids.

People and their relatives were involved in reviewing care delivery to ensure it was meeting people’s individual needs, regular keyworker reviews enabled people to discuss what was working and not working.

People's consent was gained before any care was provided, and they were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives.

Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and spent time getting to know them.

A complaints system was in place and was used effectively.

The registered manager was open and honest, and worked in partnership with outside agencies to improve people’s support when required.

The provider’s quality assurance processes were effective and resulted in improvements to the service.

The service had improved since the previous inspection and met the characteristics of a good rating in all areas. More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection:

Requires improvement. Published April 2018

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up:

We will monitor all intelligence we receive about the service to inform when the next inspection should take place.

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

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Risks to people had not always been recognised and assessed, and historic risks to people had not always been identified in people’s care plans. Accidents and incidents had not always been recorded and investigated appropriately.

There was enough staff to meet people’s basic care needs; however people told us that social opportunities were limited and restricted.

Peoples concerns were not always recorded as complaints. These concerns had not been investigated and people continued to have the same concerns and felt that they were not being listened to.

The staff team did not always feel supported by the management team. The feedback we received suggested that the manager was overloaded with tasks and did not have time to complete all of the roles effectively. However, a new deputy manager had been appointed and had commenced their role on the day we inspected and staff thought this support was going to make a positive difference.

Most people told us they were treated with dignity and respect; however we also saw and were given examples of occasions where outcomes for people were not as good as they could have been.

People's health and well-being was monitored by staff and they were supported to access health professionals; however we saw that on one occasion this did not happen in a timely manner. People were supported to have sufficient amounts to eat and drink to maintain a balanced diet.

Staff received the training they required to meet the needs of the people they were caring for and the induction process for new staff was comprehensive.

Care plans contained information about peoples assessed needs and their preferences, however they required completing in more detail to enable care staff to offer a more person centred approach.

There were safe systems in place for the management of medicines; however some documents relating to medicines required updating.

All staff knew their responsibilities as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and had applied that knowledge appropriately.

Staff understood the importance of obtaining people’s consent when supporting them with their daily living needs.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Southwood House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 14 people with physical and learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection, the service was providing support to 13 people.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

People felt safe. Staff had an understanding of abuse and the safeguarding procedures that should be followed to report abuse and people had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as possible.

Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service and there were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s care and support needs

Medicines were stored, handled and administered safely within the service.

Staff members had induction training when joining the service, as well as regular ongoing training.

Staff were well supported by the registered manager and had regular one to one supervisions.

People’s consent was gained before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met.

People were able to choose the food and drink they wanted and staff supported people with this.

People were supported to access health appointments when necessary.

Staff supported people in a caring manner. They knew the people they were supporting well and understood their requirements for care.

People were involved in their own care planning and were able to contribute to the way in which they were supported.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.

People were encouraged to take part in a range of activities and social interests of their choice.

The service had a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to use it.

Quality monitoring systems and processes were used effectively to drive future improvement and identify where action was needed