• Care Home
  • Care home

Good Companions EMI Residential Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

113 Roe Lane, Southport, Merseyside, PR9 7PG (01704) 220450

Provided and run by:
Benridge Care Homes Limited

All Inspections

25 October 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Good Companions EMI Residential Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care to up to 26 people. The service provides support to older people, some people were living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 20 people using the service. Accommodation was provided throughout one adapted building.

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

People received a caring service, were happy living at Good Companions EMI Residential Care Home and had formed trusting relationships with the staff team. Staff were recruited safely, and staffing levels were safe.

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. Risk assessments and care plans had been developed to meet people’s needs. People and their families were involved in developing their care plans which were person centred. Changes were made as people’s needs changed.

People received their medicines as prescribed and were supported to access healthcare and other specialist services. The staff also worked with other professionals and organisations to ensure positive outcomes were achieved for people.

The service was well-led and staff felt supported by the registered manager and wider management team.

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

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was good (published 27 October 2017).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

1 February 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Good Companions EMI Residential Care Home provides care for up to 26 older people, including those living with dementia. Accommodation is over three floors. At the time of our inspection, the home was providing care and support to 21 people.

We found the following examples of good practice.

The home facilitated face to face visits, in line with government guidance. Revised guidance on visiting had recently been introduced at the time of our inspection, both the registered manager and provider had already taken steps to implement the changes.

The home had its own visiting pod which had its own entrance meaning that visitors did not have to enter the home if so preferred. Alternatives to in-person visitation, such as virtual visits, were also supported.

The home provided key information about COVID-19, visiting and self- isolation to people in an easy read format, so they were able to better understand the information. Staff had undergone training in how to increase people's awareness of keeping safe from COVID-19 and to relieve any anxieties they may have.

A ‘booking in’ procedure was in place for visitors to the home including, a health questionnaire and evidence of a negative lateral flow test. Each visitor also underwent a risk assessment. This helped prevent visitors spreading infection on entering the premises.

People and staff were tested regularly for COVID-19. Staff employed at the home had been vaccinated, to help keep people safe from the risk of infection. Some staff had already received their COVID-19 booster vaccinations.

Infection control policies and procedures helped ensure that the home adopted best practice which complied with current guidance. Cleaning schedules and audits were in place to help maintain cleanliness and minimise the spread of infection.

The home was clean and hygienic. Some rooms had recently been newly painted and plans were in place to refresh painting in other parts of the home.

Staff were trained and competent in infection prevention and control best practices and how to put on and take off PPE. Posters around the home acted as a visual reminder and prompt. The home had adequate supplies of appropriate PPE. Staff had a designated area of the home where they could change into their uniforms and put on PPE before each shift.

The registered manager maintained links with external health professionals to enable people to receive the care and intervention they needed. Virtual consultations took place as and when necessary.

5 September 2017

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection was conducted on 5 September 2017.

Situated in Southport and located close to public transport links, leisure and shopping facilities, Good Companions EMI Residential Care Home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 26 people living with dementia. There is a lounge on the ground floor and an open-plan lounge and dining area in the basement. Bedrooms are located on the ground and upper floors. All floors can be accessed by a passenger lift if people have mobility needs. There is a large garden to the rear of the property and car parking to the front.

At the time of inspection 24 people were living at the home.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

Each of the relatives that we spoke with was very complimentary regarding safety at Good Companions. We also saw clear evidence of safe practice.

We saw that people were protected from the risk of abuse or harm because staff knew people well and were vigilant in monitoring risk. Risk assessments had been regularly reviewed and changes applied where necessary.

Medicines were safely managed within the home by trained staff and in accordance with best-practice guidance for care homes.

Staff were recruited safely and deployed in sufficient numbers to meet people’s needs. The people that we spoke with were clear that staff had the right skills and experience to provide the specialist care required. Staff were trained in subjects relevant to the needs of people living at Good Companions. Subjects included; adult safeguarding, mental capacity and moving and handling. This basic training was supplemented with additional, specialist training. For example, in dementia and end of life care.

People’s capacity was assessed and consent sought in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The processes and records relating to the assessment of capacity and consent to care were extremely thorough and well-detailed. Consent was sought and recorded in care records.

People were supported to maintain a varied and healthy diet in accordance with their preferences and healthcare needs. The home operated a rolling menu which offered good choice.

We saw from care records that staff supported people to access a range of community based healthcare services on a regular basis. Some people were also supported to access specialist healthcare services where there was an identified need. We saw examples of the positive impact that the home had on people’s health and wellbeing.

Good Companions was specifically adapted to meet he needs of people living with dementia. Adaptations and décor had been developed with the support of specialists in dementia care.

People living at Good Companions, their relatives and professionals were complimentary about the quality of care provided and the positive impact that the home had on people’s lives. We saw staff support people with their personal care in a manner that was respectful and discrete. When staff delivered care and support they explained what they were doing when supporting each person.

Some people living in the home were involved in the planning and review of their care. For other people this was not practical because their health conditions limited their understanding of the process. Where this was the case information from relatives, professionals and staff was used to update care plans. Care records provided evidence of regular review and personalised approaches.

Relatives and staff spoke positively about the management of the home. The registered manager held responsibility for two other homes in the area and made effective use of a management team to provide day to day management of the home. It was clear that each of the managers had a good understanding of the home and the people living there.

We saw that the staff on duty during the inspection were motivated to provide a high-quality, responsive service to the people living in the home and clearly understood their roles and responsibilities. Our observations of their practice and their responses to our questions were positive throughout the inspection.

The registered manager oversaw the completion of a wide range of quality and safety audits on a regular basis. They provided evidence of a comprehensive system for quality assurance.

The ratings from the previous inspection were displayed as required.

4 April 2015

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 14 April 2015.

Good Companions EMI Residential Care Home is registered to accommodate up to 26 people. who have dementia. There is a lounge on the ground floor and a recently refurbished open-plan lounge and dining area in the basement. Bedrooms are located on the ground and upper floors. All floors can be accessed by a passenger lift if people have mobility needs. There is a large garden to the rear of the property and car parking to the front. The home is located on the outskirts of Southport and is close to public transport links, and local community facilities.

A registered manager was 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 said they felt safe living at the home and were supported in a safe way by staff. Families that we spoke with also told us they thought the home was a safe place to live. They said there was good security in the home. We observed staff constantly checking on people throughout the day especially the people who liked to walk about the building frequently throughout the day.

The staff we spoke with could clearly describe how they would recognise abuse and the action they would take to ensure actual or potential abuse was reported. Staff confirmed they had received adult safeguarding training. An adult safeguarding policy was in place for the home and the local area safeguarding procedure was also available for staff to access.

Staff had been appropriately recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. People living at the home, families and staff told us there was sufficient numbers of staff on duty at all times.

Staff told us they were well supported through the induction process, regular supervision and appraisal. They said they were up-to-date with the training they were required by the organisation to undertake for the job. They told us management provided good quality training.

A range of risk assessments had been completed depending on people’s individual needs. Care plans were well completed and they reflected people’s current needs, in particular people’s physical health care needs. Risk assessments and care plans were reviewed on a monthly basis or more frequently if needed.

Safeguards were in place to ensure medicines were managed in a safe way. Medicines were administered individually from the medication room to people living at the home. The care manager said it was safer and less distracting this way, and reduced the risk of errors occurring. Staff wore a red tabard to highlight they must not be disturbed while giving out medicines. The care manager said that people living at the home seemed to know what this meant and they were less likely to approach the member of staff wearing the tabard.

The building was clean, well-lit and clutter free. Measures were in place to monitor the safety of the environment and equipment. An extensive refurbishment programme was in place to ensure the home provided a dementia friendly environment. Recently completed work in the basement provided people with a spacious and airy environment that they could walk about in safely without losing their bearings.

People’s individual needs and preferences were respected by staff. They were supported to maintain optimum health and could access a range of external health care professionals when they needed to.

People told us they were satisfied with the meals. A family member had tested the food and said it was good. We observed that people had plenty of encouragement and support at meal times. People living at the home and their families were invited to contribute when the menus were being revised.

People and families described management and staff as caring, respectful and approachable. Families said the service was well managed and a family member told us they had recommended the home to other people. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and their preferred routines. We observed positive and warm engagement between people living at the home and staff throughout the inspection. A full and varied programme of recreational activities was available for people to participate in.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing support or care. The home adhered to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Applications to deprive people of their liberty under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) had been submitted to the Local Authority.

The culture within the service was and open and transparent. Staff and people living there said the management was both approachable and supportive. They felt listened to and involved in the running of the home.

Staff were aware of the whistle blowing policy and said they would not hesitate to use it. Opportunities were in place to address lessons learnt from the outcome of incidents, complaints and other investigations.

A procedure was established for managing complaints and people living at the home and their families were aware of what to do should they have a concern or complaint. No complaints had been received within the last 12 months.

Audits or checks to monitor the quality of care provided were in place and these were used to identify developments for the service.

12 December 2013

During a routine inspection

During our visit we spoke with four people living in the home and with four visitors. We also spoke with two members of staff.

People told us they were happy with the care and support they received and had no concerns or complaints. Comments included, "It's a very nice place; just smashing", "I can choose what I want to do", and "Staff are very good to me; I am very well looked after". Comments from visitors included, 'The home is very family orientated' and 'I have no concerns at all and would be happy to recommend the home to anyone'.

We were told there were opportunities for involvement in suitable activities both inside and outside the home and activities were tailored to people's individual needs and preferences. During our visit we observed people participating in and enjoying a number of meaningful activities.

People told us they were happy with the staff team and they said there were enough staff. Comments about staff included, 'Staff are very kind and understanding', 'Staff are approachable; nothing is too much trouble' and 'Staff are marvellous'.

6 June 2012

During a routine inspection

On the day of the visit people who lived in the home, their relatives and visitors were interviewed and asked their views about how the service involved them and kept them informed. Feedback was limited from people living at Good Companions due to their level of communication but we were able to make general observations of people's wellbeing, as further evidence of inclusion.

People spoken with confirmed they were encouraged to express their views openly. They said staff were friendly and always on hand to talk to. One person said. ''Staff are lovely and very caring.'' A visitor told us 'staff are excellent. They treat everybody as individuals.'

People spoken with expressed the view they were treated with respect and dignity. They said their wishes were listened to.

People were relaxed and talked freely. We spoke with one person who said ''The staff look after me very well. They are very kind.'' We spoke with a relative who said that staff worked well with them and reported any changes in the care very quickly. They reported that their relative had settled well into the home and staff had spent a lot of time being positive and reassuring which had helped immensely. Another visitor told us that the standard of care was consistent and their relative was being well cared for.

We received positive comments about the staff which helped evidence their competency and approach to care. Comments include:

'Staff are very good. They always make sure they spend time with [my relative] and are very patient.'

'Staff are fantastic ' they create a good atmosphere for people.'

'Staff always let me now what's happening with [my relative] and let me know if a doctor is needed. I see how they look after other people ' very good care.'

People reported that staff numbers were consistent and staff said there was a good morale, so staff supported each other and worked well together.

All the people spoken with, who were able to express an opinion, knew how they could make their views known if they were not happy with the service provided. They said they would speak to the staff, the manager or a relative.

The relatives spoken with knew how to make their views known if they were not happy with the service provided. One told us that the staff and manager were very approachable. The manager had also held relative meetings, a forum by which they could raise any issues.