Archived: Langdale View

On our initial visit we found some areas of the service were not well maintained. These have now been improved and we are now assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines as a designated care setting.

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The provider had identified a specific area within the home to ensure effective use of cohorting and zoning. That meant that people had rooms and facilities in a certain area of the home and were cared for by a dedicated staff team, which reduced the potential for the infection to spread. Staff were appointed to work in designated areas which further reduced the potential for transfer of infections.

¿ There was a specific entrance for people being admitted into the service. Visitors were admitted through the main entrance and everyone was temperature tested and completed hand disinfection prior to entering the home.

¿ The provider ensured plentiful supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE). This included face masks and aprons and we saw staff used these appropriately. Staff were encouraged to change their PPE regularly. Used PPE was disposed of in special foot operated pedal bins situated throughout the home which reduced the potential for transfer of infection.

¿ Staff encouraged people to wash their hands frequently throughout the day. Where this was not possible, hand sanitiser was offered as a means to reduce the transfer of infection.

¿ The provider participated in regular COVID-19 testing of people living in the service and staff. That ensured action could be taken swiftly to reduce the potential spread of infection if a positive test was returned.

¿ Areas were cleaned and disinfected with cleaning products approved to reduce the potential transfer of infection.

¿ Risk assessments had been completed to protect people and any staff who may be at a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 , measures were in place to support them. Staff were supported by the option of contacting a staff member for their personal wellbeing. The provider had appointed a member of staff to coordinate the wellbeing of all the people in the homes, their relatives and staff in all the company locations.

¿ Staff worked in set teams with staff working in defined areas, which lessened the potential of cross infection within shift members.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Some areas of the service were not well maintained. The edges of flooring in people's bedrooms was not sealed adequately to deter the ingress of fluids and leave the potential for cross contamination. Splashback wall tiles were cracked and the shower room flooring required attention to reduce the potential for cross infection. Some support equipment was rusty and damaged. This compromised infection control measures and the effectiveness of cleaning, which meant this could contribute to the spread of infection to people and staff.

Quality assurance audits undertaken by the provider, were not effective in identifying the shortfalls found during the inspection. We were not assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines as a designated care setting.

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The provider had identified a specific area within the home to ensure effective use of cohorting and zoning. That meant that people had rooms and facilities in a certain area of the home and were cared for by a dedicated staff team, which reduced the potential for the infection to spread. Staff were appointed to work in designated areas which further reduced the potential for transfer of infections.

¿ There was a specific entrance for people being admitted into the service. Visitors were admitted through the main entrance and everyone was temperature tested and completed hand disinfection prior to entering the home.

¿ The provider ensured plentiful supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE). This included face masks and aprons and we saw staff used these appropriately. Staff were encouraged to change their PPE regularly. Used PPE was disposed of in special foot operated pedal bins situated throughout the home which reduced the potential for transfer of infection.

¿ Staff encouraged people to wash their hands frequently throughout the day. Where this was not possible, hand sanitiser was offered as a means to reduce the transfer of infection.

¿ The provider participated in regular Covid-19 testing of people living in the service and staff. That ensured action could be taken swiftly to reduce the potential spread of infection if a positive test was returned.

¿ Areas were cleaned and disinfected with cleaning products approved to reduce the potential transfer of infection.

¿ Risk assessments had been completed to protect people and any staff who may be at a higher risk of contracting Covid-19, measures were in place to support them. Staff were supported by the option of contacting a staff member for their personal wellbeing. The provider had appointed a member of staff to coordinate the wellbeing of all the people in the homes, their relatives and staff in all the company locations.

¿ Staff worked in set teams with staff working in defined areas, which lessened the potential of cross infection within shift members.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Langdale View 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.

Langdale View provides nursing and personal care for up to 36 older people. Some of the people at the home are living with dementia. The home is located in Leicester and accommodation is provided over three floors with a lift for access. At the time of our inspection there were 35 people accommodated at the home.

The service had a registered manager. This 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 told us they felt safe at the home because there were always staff on hand to support and care for them. Staff understood the importance of protecting people from harm including those who might not be able to say if something was wrong. If people were at risk due to their mental health or physical disabilities staff took action to minimise this.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. They valued people as individuals and were interested in them and their lives. The staff team was multicultural, reflective of the local area’s rich cultural heritage, and had a positive approach to diversity. People's privacy, dignity and independence was respected and promoted.

People said the home had a happy and calm atmosphere. Staff said they enjoyed working there because they were able to get to know the people they supported as individuals and build up relationships with them. The staff were well-trained and knowledgeable about the needs of the people they were supporting.

There were enough staff employed to meet people’s needs. Communal areas were well-staffed and if people were in their bedrooms staff regularly checked on them. Staff had time to assist people with their needs and also to socialise with them and support them to take part in activities. Staff were safely recruited in line with the providers' safe recruitment policies and procedures.

Medicines were stored securely and safely administered. People were protected by the prevention and control of infection. If any accidents or incidents occurred lessons were learnt and action taken to reduce risk in future.

People were supported to eat, drink and maintain a balanced diet. People had a choice of dishes, portions were of a good size, and the food well-prepared. If people needed assistance with their meals staff provided this.

Care plans were personalised and gave clear information to staff about each person's specific needs and how they liked to be supported. People were satisfied with how their personal care was provided. Staff ensured people had regular access to GPs and other healthcare professionals as required. Staff understood the importance of people consenting to their care.

People were able to take part in activities of their choice. People had individual activity profiles setting out their hobbies, interests, and what activities they would like to take part in. Recent group and one-to-one activities had included baking, watercolour painting, visiting entertainers, board games, and coffee mornings run by a befriending service.

Surveys were used to gather the views of people, relatives and visiting professionals. The results of these showed a high level of satisfaction with the home. People, relatives and staff were also invited to share their views at one-to-one and group meetings with managers.

The providers and registered managers monitored the quality of the home and took action to bring about improvements where necessary. At the time of our inspection they were engaged in two projects run by a local university, one to improve outcomes for people living with dementia, and the other to reduce the risk of falls. These projects were an example of the continuous learning and improvement taking place at the home.