We carried out a review of the data available to us about Allison House Residential Home 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 Allison House Residential Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The provider had systems in place to support safe visiting to the service. Visitors were required to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination and a negative lateral flow COVID-19 test taken on day of visit. In addition, visitors were required to have their temperature taken and complete a COVID-19 screening questionnaire.
People had been supported by staff to maintain contact with their relatives and friends during the COVID-19 pandemic through use of video and telephone calls. In addition, in line with government guidance alternate visiting including window visits, garden visits and face to face visits were promoted. The registered manager recognised the impact of COVID-19 on people’s wellbeing and encouraged the role of the essential care giver.
Staff had received training in the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE). During the inspection staff were observed wearing PPE correctly.
On the day of inspection, the home appeared to be visibly clean and hygienic with no unpleasant odours. During the pandemic cleaning schedules had been reviewed and updated to include enhanced cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
All staff had received both doses of the COVID-19 vaccination. A record of COVID-19 vaccinations had been maintained by the registered manager.
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 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.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People using the service felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and they felt confident in how to report these types of concerns.
People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety, and balanced these against people’s rights to take risks and remain independent.
There were sufficient staff with the correct skill mix on duty to support people with their needs. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. Staff were not offered employment until satisfactory checks had been completed.
Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service. Effective infection control measures were in place to protect people.
People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people. Staff gained consent before supporting people.
Staff received induction and on-going training. They had attended a variety of training to ensure that they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people. They were also supported with regular supervisions.
People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required to enable people to access a balanced diet. There was access to drinks and snacks throughout the day.
People were supported to access a variety of health professionals when required, including community nurses and doctors to make sure that people received additional healthcare to meet their needs.
Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.
People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times. Care plans were written in a person centred way and were responsive to people’s needs. People were supported to follow their interests and join in activities.
People knew how to complain. There was a complaints procedure in place and accessible to all. Complaints had been responded to appropriately.
Quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.
People are 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.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
This inspection was carried out on 07 January 2016 and was unannounced. This was our first inspection of this service which provides care and accommodation for up to 42 people, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 40 people living at the home.
The home had 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.
People told us they felt safe living in the home because they had staff to support them and that they knew who to speak with if they felt unsafe. The provider had put in place effective systems to protect people from avoidable harm. Staff were trained in safeguarding and were able to tell us the actions they would take to ensure people’s safety.
Personalised care plans that gave members of staff clear guidance on how to support people were in place as were risk assessments to reduce the risk of harm to people. The provider had also put in place appropriate health and safety risk assessments connected to the running of the home.
Medicines were administered safely and people were supported to access other healthcare professionals to maintain their health and well-being.
There was evidence that people were involved in decision making around the care that they received. They were involved in choosing nutritious food and drinks that were offered to them throughout the day.
People were encouraged to maintain their interests and hobbies. They were encouraged to develop and maintain their independence as much as possible.
People were aware of the provider’s complaints system and information about this and other aspects of the service were available in an easy read format. People were encouraged to contribute to the development of the service.
There were enough skilled, qualified staff to provide for people’s needs. Robust recruitment and selection processes were in place and the provider had taken steps to ensure that staff were suitable to work with people who lived at the home.
People told us that staff were trained and knew how to support them. The staff understood and complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
Staff were caring and respected people’s privacy and dignity. They were encouraged to contribute to the development of the service and understood the provider’s visions and values.
There was an effective quality assurance system in place that included weekly medicines and care plan audits that were completed by the management team.