Archived: Alex Wood House

We found the following examples of good practice.

Visitors had their temperature taken, completed a health questionnaire and wore personal protective equipment (PPE).

The home had a good supply of PPE. All staff had received training in the correct use of PPE, and how to take it off and put it on safely.

People were supported to have regular contact with their families and friends via visits behind screens, video calling and telephone calls.

Whole home testing was carried out on both people and staff.

Cleaning of the home, including frequently touched surfaces, had increased to reduce the risk of transmission of infection. There were ample supplies of cleaning equipment to reduce the spread of infection. There were electronic reminders for staff to empty the bins each shift. Extra uniforms had been purchased for the staff to ensure they could launder them between shifts.

Alex Wood House is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to 34 older people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 36 people on two floors of a purpose-built care home. The building has communal areas such as a conservatory, lounge/ diners, a sensory room and a garden for people and their visitors to use. The ground floor provides care to people living with dementia.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Trained staff followed the systems in place to monitor and manage people’s risks and keep people safe from avoidable harm. Staff followed good practice guidelines to prevent the spread of infection. Staff who had been trained and their competency checked, managed and administered people’s prescribed medicines safely.

Staff received training and supervision from the management team that helped enable them to do their job well. The provider and registered manager supported staff to develop their skills and knowledge through further training.

Staff treated the people they supported with kindness and compassion. People liked the staff that cared for them. Staff promoted and maintained people’s privacy and dignity. People enjoyed the activities that went on at the service, but some people told us they would like more trips outside of the service. Links were established with the local community and people from the community were encouraged to visit the coffee mornings held at the service.

People were supported to eat and drink enough amounts, however people had mixed opinions about the food. People were involved in making decisions about their care. Staff gave and respected people’s choices. Their preferences on how staff delivered their care was recorded in their care records for staff to follow. This included people’s end of life wishes.

The service was well managed by a registered manager and regular input from the providers management team. Staff were passionate about giving people a good-quality service. Staff used varying systems to monitor the quality of care being delivered to people. Representatives from the providers management team undertook monitoring visits to spot check the quality of the service provided.

Complaints and concerns were investigated, and complainants responded to. People, their relatives and staff were given opportunities to give their view of the service and from this feedback action was taken to make any improvements.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 17 May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. The deputy manager was ‘acting up’ into this role, whilst the provider advertised for a new 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.

This inspection was carried out on 2 May 2017 and was an unannounced inspection. At the last inspection on 29 June 2015, the service was rated as ‘good.’ At this inspection we found the service remained ‘good.’

Staff assisted people in a way that supported their safety and people were treated with respect. Staff were knowledgeable of how to report incidents of harm and poor care. Accidents and incidents were identified and recorded. Actions were taken to, as far as possible, reduce the risk of recurrence.

People had care plans in place which took account of their individual needs. These plans recorded people’s choices, their likes and dislikes, and any assistance they required. Risks to people who lived at the service were identified, and plans were put into place by staff to minimise and monitor these risks. This enabled people to live as safe and independent a life as possible.

People and their relatives/ advocates were involved in the setting up and agreement of their/their family members care plans.

People were looked after by enough, suitably qualified staff to support them safely with their individual needs. Pre-employment checks were completed on staff before they were deemed to be suitable to look after people at the service.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed and medicines were safely managed by staff whose competency had been assessed. Where there had been any errors in the administration of people’s medicines, these had been identified and dealt with appropriately.

Staff assisted people in a caring manner and with compassion. They knew the people they supported well and were aware of their history and personal preferences. Staff promoted and encouraged people to make their own choices. People’s dignity was respected at all times and staff assisted people in the way they wished to be supported.

The service was flexible and responsive to people’s needs. People maintained contact with their relatives, friends and the local community.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and fluids. Staff monitored people’s health and well-being needs and acted upon issues identified. They also assisted people to access a range of external health care services when needed and their individual health needs were met.

Staff enjoyed their work and were supported and managed to look after people. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. They were assisted by the acting manager to maintain and develop their skills and knowledge by way of supervision, competencies, and appraisals. Staff were trained to provide safe and effective care which met people’s individual requirements.

There was a process in place so that people’s concerns and complaints were listened to and acted upon and where possible resolved to the complainants satisfaction.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. DoLS applications had been made to the appropriate authorities to ensure that people’s rights were protected. People’s rights in making decisions and suggestions in relation to their support and care were valued and acted on.

Arrangements were in place to ensure the quality of the service provided for people was regularly monitored. People who lived at the service and their relatives were encouraged to share their views and feedback about the quality of the care and support provided and actions were taken as a result to drive forward any improvements required.

We saw that people received care in accordance with their care plans. Staff were responsive to people's needs and invested in providing a high standard of dementia care. We spoke with people who used the service. One person told us, 'A good place to be, I wouldn't want to move.'

We viewed the care plans for three people and saw that their care notes showed regular contact with visiting health professionals. We also saw that people had their social well-being considered and staff planned for this in their plans. This meant that people had regular access to health professionals and support from other providers such as social workers. People also had access to other services which included hairdressers and dentists.

The service had effective systems in place to ensure that the quality of dementia care was provided to the required standard. Staff were trained and supervised to ensure they worked in accordance with the service's required standards. People who used the service were given opportunity to express their views and they were listened to. One person told us, 'I have absolutely nothing to complain about here. I'd soon kick up a fuss if there were.'

We found that there were many activities available for people to join in and that these were publicised. Regular outings were also planned. One person told me, "I enjoyed going to Sherringham in the summer". Another said, "I watch TV and read the paper". We saw that a relative had complimented the team at Alex Wood House for the well organised Jubilee celebrations.

The environment was found to be pleasant, comfortable and clean with access to a range of communal areas. The outdoor space was well maintained. We were told that people enjoyed the rabbits, budgerigar and aquarium.