Sahara Gardens

Updated 27 March 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 15 March 2021 and was announced.

Updated 27 March 2021

Sahara Gardens is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during the inspection.

This inspection took place on 18 and 23 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 Gardens accommodates five adults with learning disabilities and autism in a two storey building. At the time of this inspection there were four 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.