We carried out a review of the data available to us about Featherton House 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 Featherton House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The management team had a system to manage visitors safely. The procedures were explained to visitors on arrival, this included completing a declaration form and checking their temperature. A visiting 'pod' was introduced to allow safe visits in a COVID-19 secure environment, other visits were slowly being reintroduced in line with the most recent government guidance. These included using COVID-19 lateral flow tests which are the tests that give an instant result.
People were supported to maintain contact with families, this included using a technology. A large portable screen was purchased to ensure where people used video calling they could clearly see their relatives.
The number of people living at the service allowed for social distancing. Consideration was given to the environment, for example, additional tables had been purchased to ensure better social distancing during mealtimes. The management were aware of zoning guidelines but did not need to implement it to date.
The provider ensured there was a sufficient stock of personal protective equipment (PPE) that met the quality standards. Staff received infection control training and the management team ensured staff followed the correct donning and doffing of the PPE and hand washing procedures.
People were supported by a committed team of staff whom they knew very well. This helped people to recognize the individual staff behind the face masks.
Regular testing for COVID-19 took place, for both people living at the service and the staff. The provider had a robust contingency plan what to do in case of a various adverse scenarios.
The management praised the support received from the provider's head office and the teamwork at the service. They said, "The team has been absolutely fantastic, and they were covering shifts as needed." Individual assessments had been carried out with staff members to ensure their personal circumstances or health conditions were known so any additional support could be offered as needed.
The management team reported good support from the local health professionals which ensured the team was able to meet people's healthcare needs.
At the last inspection in September 2015 the service was rated as Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Why the service’s overall rating remains to be Good:
The service remained exceptionally caring. There was a calm and extremely peaceful ambience with a warm and friendly welcome. People complimented the staff and the service using terms such as ‘it’s like home’ and ‘absolutely fantastic’. Staff were extremely committed to deliver compassionate care and told us they put people’s needs first. People’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times. Staff ensured they used knowledge about people’s past lives, hobbies and experiences to enhance their experience of living at the service. People’s end of life wishes had been recorded and staff were fully aware of these.
People remained safe at the home. There was a consistent and long standing team of staff who provided care to people and sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Risk assessments in relation to people’s well-being were carried out and staff promoted positive risk taking so people were able to live their lives as they wanted. People received their medicines safely and were supported to manage their own medicines if they wished to do so.
People continued to receive effective support from suitably trained and skilled staff. Staff told us and records confirmed staff were well supported in their roles. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People were supported to access health professionals when needed and meet their nutritional and hydration needs.
The service continued to be responsive to people's changing needs and staff ensured people had support that met their needs. People had access to a variety of social activities and outings that met their individual choices. People knew how to make a complaint but told us they hadn’t needed to. People’s feedback and ideas were sought and acted on to ensure people were at the centre of the service delivery. We saw the survey results and noted very positive comments were received.
The service remained well managed. The home was run by a registered manager who led their team by example. There was a positive, open culture that valued people, relatives and staff. The provider had effective systems in place to ensure people experienced good quality care. The staff worked well with professionals to ensure a holistic approach to meeting people’s needs.
We inspected this service on 21 September 2015. This was an unannounced inspection. We previously inspected the service in September 2013. The service was meeting the requirements of the regulations at that time.
Featherton House is registered to provide accommodation for up to 25 older people who require personal care. At the time of the inspection there were 23 people living at the service.
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, their relatives and staff felt the service was very well led and were highly complimentary about the registered manager and staff team.
There was a calm, warm and friendly atmosphere at the service. Every member of staff we spoke with was highly motivated and inspired to give kind and compassionate care. People enjoyed living at the service and told us it felt like home. People described their relationship with staff and each other as a family. People felt valued as individuals and told us staff went ‘the extra mile’ to make them feel they mattered. Staff knew the people they cared for and what was important to them. Staff appreciated peoples unique life histories and understood how these could influence the way people wanted to be cared for. People's choices and wishes were respected and recorded in their care records. Staff offered support in a way that promoted people’s independence.
People had been involved in reviewing their care. People had a range of individualised risk assessments in place to keep them safe and to help them maintain their independence. People were assessed regularly and care plans were detailed. Staff followed guidance in care plans and risk assessments to ensure people were safe and their needs were met. Where required staff involved a range of other professionals in people’s care. Staff were quick to identify and alert other professionals when people’s needs changed.
People were supported to have their nutritional needs met. People were highly complementary about the food and were given choice and variety. The menu was flexible to ensure people were able to have what they wanted at each mealtime. Mealtimes were flexible according to people’s choice and preference.
Where people had received end of life care, staff had taken actions to ensure people would have as dignified and comfortable death as possible. End of life care was provided in a compassionate way and families appreciated the support they had been given at a difficult time.
People felt supported by competent staff. Staff were motivated to improve the quality of care provided to people and benefitted from regular supervision, team meetings and training to help them meet the needs of the people they were caring for.
Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS); these provide legal safeguards for people who may be unable to make their own decisions. There restrictions were no restrictions placed on people at the time of our inspection.
People felt involved in the running of the service. The manager was continually striving to improve the quality of care provided to people.
Peoples' needs were assessed and care and treatment was delivered in line with their care plan. We looked at three care plans. We saw that peoples' needs had been assessed. For example, one person who was nursed in bed had been assessed for pressure relieving equipment and had been provided with an airflow pressure mattress to prevent the risk of pressure damage to the skin. People we spoke with told us they received the care that was documented in the care plans. We saw that care plans were regularly reviewed by staff and this involved discussion with the people about their preferences and choices.
People were cared for in a clean and hygienic environment and appropriate guidance on infection control had been followed. One person said 'It's very good. There's a wonderful cleaner who comes nearly every day. Everything always smells nice'
There was an effective recruitment process in place and appropriate checks were undertaken before people started work to ensure that they were fit, of good character and had the skills to do the work.
People and relatives were asked for their views about their care and treatment through regular surveys and meetings. We saw evidence that these were acted upon. There were systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks.
This inspection was held just prior to Christmas and the home had been decorated in readiness for a banquet to be held later in the week. People told us what a lovely annual event this was and how much they were looking forward to it. A visitor, who would be attending the banquet, said that 'The food was better than you would get in any hotel'.
Visiting relatives told us that they held the staff in high regard and that their relative would not be in the home if they had any concerns at all about the care they were receiving. Other relatives had written in a questionnaire that the staff go out of their way to help people in the home.
People living in the home commented positively on the home and its staff. One person told us that the staff are all very nice. Another said they were happy here.