Archived: Pershore Road Residential Care

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ A visitor protocol was in place. It detailed the responsibilities and safe practice requirements of visitors to ensure visits took place safely in line with current guidance.

¿ Staff had shared information about Covid-19 with people in a variety of ways. This helped people to understand the virus and the guidance they needed to follow to keep themselves safe in the home and when they went out.

¿ Cleaning schedules had been increased. Areas including light switches and door handles were cleaned every two hours. Additional audits and staff competency checks had been implemented to monitor cleanliness and staff compliance with the provider’s infection control policy.

¿ Staff completed ‘health and wellbeing questionnaires’ which enabled them to self-identify if they needed any support from their employer during the pandemic. A confidential helpline was available for staff to seek advice and support during the pandemic.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The inspection took place on 28 November 2018 and was unannounced.

At our last inspection on 4 February 2016 we rated the service as overall ‘good’. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People continued to receive a safe service. Medication was well managed and people received the right medication at the right time. Appropriate action had been taken to cover recent staff absence and there were sufficient staff on duty to support people. People were encouraged to take positive risks which enabled them to feel part of the community and developed their independence.

People continued to receive an effective service. The layout of the home was designed in such a way to allow people to practice and prepare for independent living. Staff received specialist training which enabled them to provide effective support to the people using the service. People enjoyed having the opportunity to prepare food that they had chosen and prepared.

People continued to receive care from staff who were polite and respectful. People’s independence had improved as a result of staff support and people told us they felt involved in decisions about their care and support.

People continued to receive a responsive service. Thorough assessments were carried out prior to people moving in to ensure placements were suitable and support was personalised depending on people’s well-being and progress. People knew how to complain and had used the provider’s complaints procedures to raise any concerns.

The service continued to be consistently well-led. People and staff were happy and confident with the way the service was being led. The provider was proactively using a variety of ways to ensure people were involved improving the service and had established a range of partnerships with other organisations which benefitted people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Care was planned and designed to meet people's individual health and welfare needs.

People received sufficient quantities of food and drink to meet their needs and were supported to make choices about what they ate and drank. A person who used the service told us that they were, 'Encouraged to eat healthily'.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements for managing medicines safely.

Managers and staff told us and we saw that the provider had robust recruitment procedures in place to ensure that people employed at the service were of good character. We saw that staff had the necessary skills, qualifications and knowledge to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

The provider had robust systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.

At the time of our inspection the provider did not have a registered manager in post.

People who used the service were generally satisfied with the care and support they received at the home. Comments we received from people about the service included: 'It's alright, it's a nice place' and 'It's an average place.'

People who used the service were supported to maintain their independence and this was respected. Facilities provided enabled people to live independently in the home but with the confidence that support was available if they needed it. People were able to maintain community involvement and life skills through activities that they undertook.

We did however have some concerns with the systems in place to monitor the quality of services. Monitoring arrangements did not provide adequate assurance that people's care needs were being regularly assessed or that the care provided reflected their current needs. There was also a lack of assurance that the findings from audits that had taken place were always acted on.