Archived: Upton Grange

We found the following examples of good practice.

Managers worked effectively with other staff to ensure they followed correct infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures and were provided with current IPC guidance. Staff completed IPC training. Regular competency checks were carried out to ensure they followed correct procedures and knew how to keep people safe during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Well stocked and clearly signed personal protective equipment (PPE) stations were located around the service. Staff were observed using correct PPE equipment when carrying out their duties. People told us staff always wore the correct PPE and they felt safe whilst living at Upton Grange. Staff were observed social distancing whilst supporting people.

Risk assessments related to COVID-19 were in place and regularly monitored; this included risks related to the health and wellbeing of both people and staff. A structured plan was in place to ensure people were admitted to service safely and measures in place to prevent the spread of infection.

Staff told us they felt safe at work and well supported by the registered manager and senior staff. Staff were provided with details of appropriate services should they wish to access independent support with their wellbeing.

People were supported with their wellbeing through regular one-to-one contact with staff and support to contact family and friends. The provider had recently implemented a ‘Relative’s App’ to allow people and family to exchange messages, videos and pictures whenever they wished to. Safe measures were in place to facilitate family visitors in exceptional circumstances and in the event that regular visiting could resume.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This was the first inspection of this service under the current provider.

This service is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. This service is registered to accommodate up to 52 people who require support with their personal care. At the time of the inspection 47 people were living at the service; some of whom were living with dementia and other age related conditions. One person was staying at the service on a temporary or ‘respite’ basis and 46 people lived at the service on a permanent basis.

The registered manager had not worked at the service since January 2018. A manager of one of the providers other services had been managing the service since that time and they are referred to as ‘the manager’ in this report. 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 received effective, personalised care that was thoroughly planned and had been adapted to meet their needs. They directed and agreed to their care and the principles of Mental Capacity Act were being applied. People’s end of life care was discussed and planned and their wishes respected.

People were supported to express their views, make choices about their care, and have maximum choice and control of their lives. People chose when to get up, what to wear, when to go to bed and how to spend their day. People had the opportunity to take part in group activities such as attending exercise classes, joining in with sing a longs and quizzes or watching a film in the services own ‘cinema’. A hairdressing service was available in the services own salon and people had the opportunity to go on outings and do their own shopping. Staff spent time with people on a one to one basis and encouraged people to stay in touch with their families and receive visitors.

People were encouraged and supported to eat and drink well and there was a varied daily choice of meals on offer. Health care was accessible for people and appointments were made for regular check-ups as needed.

People felt well looked after and supported. We observed friendly relationships had developed between people and staff. Care plans described people’s preferences and needs in relevant areas, including communication, and they were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

Staff were supportive and caring and provided dignified care. They understood individual’s preferences and supported people’s lifestyle and social interests.

People's individual needs were met by the adaptation of the premises. Risks associated with the environment and equipment had been identified and managed. Technology, such as movement sensors on people’s beds were used to alert staff if people at risk of falls got out of bed. Emergency procedures were in place in the event of fire and people knew what to do, as did the staff.

We found that a safe service was provided by a staff team who were appropriately recruited, trained and supported. Established systems were in place for preventing harm and abuse. Robust arrangements had been made to protect against risks, maintain health and wellbeing, and give medicines safely.

The service had an open, inclusive culture and was well managed. Feedback was sought and responded to. Complaints had been recorded and responded to appropriately. The governance of the service ensured regular monitoring of standards and the quality of care provided. Where shortfalls were identified action had been taken to make improvements.