Helen Ley House

We found the following examples of good practice.

There were robust procedures to ensure visitors were prevented from catching and spreading infection. Visitors were required to show evidence of a negative lateral flow test taken on the day of their visit before they could enter the home. The layout of the home meant visitors could access people's bedrooms directly from outside which minimised the risks to others in the home.

Staff had received training in the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and wore PPE effectively to safeguard people from the risk of infection.

Staff took part in the ‘whole home testing’ programme. Where staff tested positive, they had to complete a self-isolation period before returning to work. The registered manager was aware of changes in government guidance in respect of COVID-19 testing which were to become effective on 16 February 2022.

When people went on visits outside the home, each visit was risk assessed to ensure people were kept safe and the risks of transmission of the virus were minimised. Staff monitored people's health to identify any early signs they were becoming unwell so prompt action could be taken.

The Helen Ley Care Centre provides nursing care for a maximum of 37 people. At the time of our visit there were 28 people living in the home and four people on respite care.

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.

This service was last inspected in March 2015 when we identified some concerns around the safe management of medicines. We returned in October 2015 and found improvements had been made. We gave this service an overall rating of good.

People felt safe living at The Helen Ley Care Centre because staff knew them well and how to care for them safely. There were enough nursing and care staff to provide effective care in a safe way. However, although staff tried to respond to people's requests in a timely manner, due to the high levels of dependency in the home, sometimes people had to wait for assistance.

Risks associated with people's care were identified and staff were knowledgeable about those risks and how to manage them. Staff completed training in safeguarding and understood their responsibility to report any concerns they had about people’s health or wellbeing.

People were confident their health needs were met and spoke positively of the multi-disciplinary approach and collaborative working with other healthcare professionals. Healthcare professionals shared their knowledge and provided training so staff could be responsive to people’s individual needs. People received their medicines when they needed them and as prescribed.

The provider had effective systems to ensure care staff received training and support that equipped them with the necessary skills and competency to meet people’s complex care needs. Nursing staff received training to ensure they followed best practice and their clinical skills remained up to date.

Staff demonstrated a good working knowledge of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People told us they made their own decisions about their day-to-day care and support, and said staff respected their right to decide.

People spoke about the caring attitude of staff in very positive terms, especially the emotional support they received from staff when they were feeling low or anxious. There was a very friendly and inclusive atmosphere within the home with people engaging with each other and staff in a relaxed and comfortable manner. Staff supported people to maintain their dignity and respected their privacy and confidentiality.

Staff worked closely with the dietician and speech and language therapy team to ensure they knew about people’s nutritional preferences, allergies and special dietary requirements. Meal times were a social occasion and people were able to choose what they wanted to eat.

Before people moved to the home, there was a multi-disciplinary assessment to ensure the service could meet each person’s individual and specific needs. Staff provided appropriate care and were responsive to changes in people’s needs. However, inconsistent completion of records did not always evidence that people had received the care as set out in their care plan.

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home and were motivated to provide people with high quality care. They spoke highly of the registered manager and the support they received, especially at challenging times.

People and their relatives had the opportunity to be involved in decisions about their care and the running of the service. They were invited to care reviews and meetings and encouraged to complete quality assurance questionnaires. People and their family members knew how to make a complaint if they wished to do so.

The quality of care people received was monitored by the registered manager and the provider through a system of audits and checks. This ensured good standards were maintained and improvements implemented when a need was identified.

Some people had complex care needs, which meant they might have had difficulty telling us what it was like to live at Helen Ley Care Centre. We therefore also gathered evidence of people's experience of the service by observing the care they received from staff.

People we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the service they received. One person told us, “I feel safe and happy here.” Another person said, “They think of everything I need.”

People told us that staff treated them with respect and promoted their privacy. People said staff knocked on their door and sought their permission before entering the room and assisting with personal care. One person told us, “Staff treat you with the greatest of respect.”

We observed that staff were familiar with the needs of people who used the service. They were able to interpret the non-verbal prompts or body language some people used to express their wishes.

Sufficient staff were available with appropriate experience and skills to meet the needs of people who used the service.