Sahara Lodge

We found the following examples of good practice.

The premises were clean and well maintained. Hand sanitiser and personal protective equipment (PPE) were available at the entrance of the home. Visitors had their temperature taken and recorded, PPE was available, and people were supported to follow the government's guidance on wearing PPE and social distancing.

The provider had appropriate arrangements to test people and staff for COVID-19 and was following government guidance on testing. This ensured people, visitors and staff were tested for COVID-19 in a consistent way in line with national guidance.

The provider has ensured staff received appropriate training and support to help prevent the spread of infection. All staff had received regular training on infection control and the use of PPE.

The provider had ensured people using the service could maintain links with family members and friends. Family members and friends could stay in touch with people by phone and video messaging. Family and friends could visit people at the service. Each person living at the service had a nominated individual who could visit them.

The provider understood the communication needs of people. For example, the provider used various forms of communication with people such as using objects of reference. The provider had explored different ways of supporting people through the pandemic. For example, the provider had created area in the service called ‘The Dripping Tap’ for people who liked to visit the pub and have a drink. The provider also had weekly themed restaurant nights for people who missed going out to restaurants.

The provider sought support and advice from external agencies including the local authority, and Public Health England health protection teams and was open to all advice and guidance offered to help keep people safe.

This inspection took place on 19 and 20 December 2017 and 24 January 2018 and was unannounced. One inspector carried out this inspection. At the previous inspection in July 2015, the service was rated as ‘Good’ overall.

Sahara Lodge accommodates nine adults with learning disabilities and autism. One person is accommodated in a self-contained basement flat next door. The other eight people are accommodated in a three storey building on the ground and first floors. At the time of this inspection there were nine people using the service.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There was a registered manager 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.

Relatives, health and social care professionals and other agencies were complimentary about the service people received. The service used a variety of communication methods to enable people to understand information given them and to voice their opinions. People had access to advocacy services to assist them to have a voice. Staff demonstrated a good rapport with people. People’s dignity and privacy was respected and care plans took account of the support they needed around relationships. Staff assisted people to reach for their goals and aspirations and were genuinely proud of what each person achieved.

Staff received support through regular supervisions and a wide range of training opportunities appropriate for their role. The premises had been refurbished and redecorated with the kitchen relocated to meet people’s needs. Building safety checks were carried out as required. The communal garden was spectacular and had been designed with the involvement of people who used the service. People were involved in menu planning and food preparation to meet their nutritional requirements. Staff assisted people to access healthcare professionals as they needed.

People’s care was personalised. Staff were responsive to any change of needs. People participated in activities of their choice. The wide variety of activities offered included the development of independent living skills and reflected people’s cultural or religious needs. People and their relatives knew how to complain but told us they had not needed to. Care plans included very detailed end of life care plans and staff were knowledgeable about how to make people’s end of life wishes happen.

The provider had systems in place to ensure people were protected from harm. Staff were knowledgeable about the actions to take if they suspected someone was being abused. People had risk assessments and risk management plans to mitigate the risks they may face. Safe recruitment checks were carried out and people were given the opportunity to participate in the interview process of new staff. Medicines were managed safely. The provider had systems in place for the control of infection.

The provider had various systems in place to obtain feedback from people and their relatives including regular meetings and feedback surveys. People were encouraged to participate in the development of the service. Staff had regular meetings so they could be updated and contribute to service development. The provider had various quality assurance systems in place to identify areas for improvement. The service had good local links to enable people to feel part of the community.

People's assessments and care plans considered all aspects of their personal needs. We saw that family members had been involved to assist with the development of support plans to ensure people's best interests were represented. Relatives we spoke with told us that they felt they did not need to worry. One relative said ''I know he is in safe hands and has never looked back since being there.''

The premises were found to be generally clean and that staff had received training to understand how to prevent and control infections. We saw that there were arrangements in place to ensure hygiene standards were maintained.

People's health and welfare needs were met by staff that were supported through the provision of regular training and supervision.

We saw that there were systems in place and information available to support people to make comments and complaints. We saw that people's complaints had been responded to and appropriate actions taken, including keeping people's families informed when concerns had been raised.

The records showed that people's needs were properly assessed and that care and support plans reflected the needs of individuals.

Staff said they enjoyed working at Sahara Lodge and commented on the training and the support available and the fact that the service focuses on people's individual needs. The state of the building was noted in the previous inspection report and is shabby and tired although clean and reasonably homely.