Argyll House

Updated 4 November 2020

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.

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

This inspection took place on 7 October 2020 and was announced. The service was selected to take part in this thematic review which is seeking to identify examples of good practice in infection prevention and control.

Updated 4 November 2020

We undertook a comprehensive unannounced inspection of Argyll House on 4 January 2018. Argyll House is a ‘care home’ registered to provide accommodation and support for up to five people with learning disabilities. There were five people living at Argyll House on the day of the inspection. 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. 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.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

People receiving support from staff at Argyll House received highly individualised person centred care. Support plans contained detailed and personalised care plans and we saw that many people had been supported to have a full and meaningful life. People benefited from a large range of activities and interests provided, to ensure they were kept occupied, if they chose. There were many excellent opportunities to optimise people's social and stimulation requirements.

There was clear guidance for staff on how to meet people’s individual needs and support them to develop their confidence and have their preferences met. We saw that people were relaxed and staff demonstrated a caring attitude. The service had ensured people’s communication was maximised, which assisted an increased understanding and reduction of distress.

As the values and vision of the organisation and service had been integrated into everyday practice, people living with learning disabilities were able to achieve what they wanted in their lives and overcame obstacles to achieve positive outcomes.

People and their families, where appropriate, were fully involved in the development of their care planning along with health and social care professionals and Argyll House staff.

The service was outstandingly well-led. The service actively promoted a positive, inclusive and open culture. All staff showed a passion and commitment to providing the best support to enable people to have full lives. The registered manager had taken time to look into ways to improve safety and share this practice within the organisation. There were robust quality assurance systems in place, which monitored the service, identifying potential areas for improvement, and actions were taken to improve these.

Staff were highly motivated and worked as a team and shared a common ethos of providing high quality, compassionate care with regard to people's individual wishes and support needs. Staff were valued, well-supported and supervised by the management team.

Staff knew how to keep people safe, and how to report any concerns. There were enough staff to keep people safe. People received their medicines as they had been prescribed.

Risks to people were identified promptly and effective plans were put in place to minimise these risks, involving relevant people, such as relatives and other professionals. Where risks were more complex, comprehensive guidance was in place to guide staff, including the most effective approaches to use, or particular communication methods suited to the individual. Guidance was in place for staff so that they could mitigate risk, and support people to take sensible risks as safely as possible.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Staff had followed the Code of Practice in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We observed staff treated people as equals and individuals, offering them options whenever they engaged with them. Staff always endeavoured to enable people to maintain their independence and to make their own decisions.

People's privacy and dignity were highly respected, and this also was reflected in the detailed guidance provided within people's care records.

People were supported to follow healthy diets, and this had a positive impact on their wellbeing. They were also supported to access healthcare services when they needed to.