Rotherview

Rotherview is a residential care home providing personal care to adults. The home caters for up to nine people between the ages of 18 to 65 years of age who have a learning disability. On the day of the inspection there were nine people living at the service.

We found the following examples of good practice

The provider had continually reviewed their infection prevention and control (IPC) policies. Staff and people who used the service had a daily ‘coffee meeting’ to talk about any concerns they had with the pandemic or the changes to guidance and procedures.

Staff completed IPC training and were observed to be wearing the correct personal protective equipment (PPE) and following best practice.

There were robust visiting protocols in place to ensure the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections. Visitors needed to take a lateral flow test and were provided with the necessary PPE upon entry to the home. This assured us the provider was facilitating visits for people living in the home in accordance with the current guidance.

Staff were involved in regular COVID-19 testing and the provider made sure they were following the recent legal requirement for all staff and relevant visitors, such as health and social care professionals, to have had the COVID-19 vaccine.

The home was clean and hygienic throughout. Staff had access to cleaning products and cleaning schedules were in place. The registered manager completed infection control audits to ensure the home remained clean and well maintained.

Rotherview Care Home is a two storey premises located close to Rotherham town centre. There are local facilities and public transport links close by. The home caters for up to nine people between the ages of 18 to 65 years of age who have a learning disability.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe living at the home and we saw there were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about safeguarding vulnerable people and were able to explain the procedures they would follow should an allegation of abuse be made.

People received personalised care which was based on their individual needs. People were involved in activities of their choice and had the freedom to lead a life without restrictions. The registered provider had a complaints procedure which was displayed in the home. People who used the service and their relatives were aware of this procedure and felt able to discuss any concerns with the staff.

We saw staff enabled people who used the service to follow their preferred interests and be as independent as possible.

Procedures were in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of infections.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff available to meet people's needs and enable them to follow their hobbies and interests. The company's recruitment system helped the employer make safe recruitment decisions when employing staff.

People received their medications in a safe and timely way, from staff that had been trained to carry out this role.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The staff we spoke with had a good understanding and knowledge of this and people who used the service had been assessed to determine if a DoLS application was required.

People were fully involved in choosing what they wanted to eat and drink. Staff told us each person selected the main menu on one day each week, but alternatives were also available. We saw people were also involved in shopping and preparing meals.

Staff were trained to carry out their role and felt they had the necessary skills to do their job. Through our observations we saw staff knew people well and understood their needs. Healthcare professionals were accessed as required.

Care records reflected people's needs and preferences, as well as any risks associated with their care. These provided staff with detailed guidance about how to support people and keep them as safe as possible. Support plans and risk assessments had been reviewed and updated regularly to ensure they were meeting each person's needs. People had consented to their support.

People participated in a various activities and outings of their choice.

The provider had a complaints policy to guide people on how to raise concerns.

People who used the service had been encouraged to share their views on the registered provider via questionnaires and at regular meetings. Surveys had also been used to gain relative's opinion of the service provided to their family members.

We found a shortfall in the management audit systems and a lack of management oversight in some systems and processes.

Rotherview Care Home is a two storey premises located close to Rotherham town centre. There are local facilities and public transport links close by. The home caters for up to nine people between the ages of 18 to 65 years of age who have a learning disability.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe living at the home and we saw there were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about safeguarding vulnerable people and were able to explain the procedures to follow should an allegation of abuse be made.

We saw staff enabled people who used the service to follow their preferred interests and be as independent as possible. People told us they liked living at the home and felt staff met their needs and supported them appropriately.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff on duty to meet people’s needs and enable them to follow their hobbies and interests. The company’s recruitment system helped the employer make safe recruitment decisions when employing staff. We found new staff had received a structured induction and essential training at the beginning of their employment. This had been followed by refresher and specialist training to update and develop their knowledge and skills.

People received their medications in a safe and timely way from staff who had been trained to carry out this role.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The staff we spoke with had a good understanding and knowledge of this and people who used the service had been assessed to determine if a DoLS application was required.

People were fully involved in choosing what they wanted to eat and drink. They told us each person selected the main menu on one day each week, but alternatives were also available. We saw people were also involved in shopping and preparing meals.

Care files reflected people’s needs and preferences, as well as any risks associated with their care. These provided staff with detailed guidance about how to support people and keep them as safe as possible. Support plans and risk assessments had been reviewed and updated regularly to ensure they were meeting each person’s needs.

People participated in a varied programme of activities and outings that was tailored around their individual interests and preferences. People told us they enjoyed the activities they took part in and said they were fully involved in deciding what they wanted to do.

The provider had a complaints policy to guide people on how to raise concerns. There was a structured system in place for recording the detail and outcome of any concerns raised.

People who used the services had been encouraged to share their views on the service provided in questionnaires and at regular meetings. Surveys had also been used to gain relative’s opinion of the service provided to their family members.

We found a system was in place to check if company policies had been followed and the premises were safe and well maintained. However, areas identified as needing improving did not have planned timescales for completion.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, speaking with the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We found people were encouraged to express their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. The staff we spoke with gave us good examples of how people were involved in making decisions about the care and support they received. We also saw staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible while offering the correct level of support.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. Records were in place to monitor any specific areas where people were more at risk. However, the guidance provided to staff was not always comprehensive regarding the actions they should take to minimise and manage risks.

The company had policies and procedures in place to help protect people who used the service from abuse. We found the majority of staff had received training in relation to safeguarding vulnerable people from abuse. People told us they felt safe living at the home.

We saw checks took place to ensure the service was operating safely.

Is the service effective?

People who used the service and their relatives had been involved in writing support plans and these had been reviewed and updated when required. However, some plans were not signed by the person using the service, or their representative to acknowledge their agreement in the planned care. Care plans had been regularly evaluated to reflect any changes in people's needs.

Staff had access to a varied training programme to ensure they could meet the needs of the people they supported, but we found regular updates had not always taken place. However, this was being addressed at the time of our visit with several update courses arranged for the near future.

Staff had received support sessions and each one had a training plan. Annual appraisals of staffs' performance had not taken place over the last year, but we saw the acting manager was addressing this shortfall.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by caring, patient and knowledgeable staff. We saw staff interacting with people positively. They encouraged them to be as independent as they were able to be, while providing support as needed.

We spoke with seven of the eight people who used the service. Their comments indicated they were happy with the care and support they received and they made positive comments about the staff that supported them.

Care files contained information about people's needs and preferences. We saw care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

Records demonstrated that when there had been changes in people's needs outside agencies had been involved to make sure they received the correct care and support.

People told us they were encouraged to be involved in community and in-house social activities. They said they had particularly enjoyed shopping trips, an outing to the coast, swimming, jewellery making and games, such as football and bowling.

The home had a complaints procedure which was available to people using and visiting the service. No complaints had been recorded since our last inspection but we saw several compliments about the service had been received.

Satisfaction surveys had been used to enable relatives to share their views on the service provided. This helped the provider to assess the quality of care and support provided as well as the general facilities available. People's comments indicated they were happy with how the home operated.

Is the service well-led?

At the time of the inspection the registered manager had just resigned. However, an acting manager, who had previously been registered to manage the service, was in post. They told us they were overseeing the day to day running of the home until a new manager could be recruited.

There was a system in place to assess if the home was operating correctly. We saw audits had been completed and where shortfalls had been noted action taken to address them.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. We saw they had access to policies, procedure and a staff handbook to inform and guide them. Staff training and development needs had been assessed to enable the provider to arrange future training sessions.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. Each person had a care file which provided staff with information about their health and care needs, as well as risks associated with their care. We saw people's preferences and abilities were recorded in the file but were not always fully incorporated into the care plans.

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. We saw there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

When we visited the home no-one was taking prescribed medication. There was a system in place should this be necessary and we were told further medication training for staff was being arranged.

People who used the service, and the staff we spoke with, said there were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. We saw they received the support they needed in a timely manner from staff who were competent in their role.

We saw records were mainly accurate and fit for purpose. However, some had not been updated and others lacked detail. Records were kept securely and could be located promptly when needed.

We spoke with four of the five people who lived at the home. Their comments indicated they received the care and support they needed and they were happy with how staff delivered their care. We saw people were encouraged to be involved in social activities, attended day centres and carried out day to day living skills, such as cooking and cleaning their rooms.

People received well balanced meals and were involved in formulating menus. Staff promoted healthy eating and checked people were eating and drinking properly.

The premises were in a good state of repair and were clean and fresh. One person said they 'Loved' their room. We saw that regular checks were made to make sure the home was safe and maintained to a satisfactory standard.

Background checks had been carried out on staff before they started to work at the home. This included ensuring staff underwent a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check.

We saw the complaints procedure was available to people who used and visited the service. People told us they felt comfortable taking any concerns to any of the staff.