Longueville Court

We found the following examples of good practice.

Visitors could visit their family member/friend by appointment using the two outside visiting pods. There was a screen, an intercom system and an emergency call bell in place. Gaps between each visit helped prevent people encountering other visitors, staff or people from the home. Gaps between visits were also used to clean the pod. End of life visits also took place in the home. Staff helped people to use computer tablets to video call family and friends to promote their social well-being.

On arrival into the building, external visitors including a health or social care visitor waited to enter in line with the providers meet and greet protocol. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) would be made available if needed.

People isolated in their rooms for 14 days, when returning from an external health appointment or were recently admitted into the home. For people who lacked capacity to understand self-isolation, additional staff would be employed to support this.

Staff socially distanced when on their break. Staff changed into their work clothes in the staff room and put on and took off their PPE before starting work. They had a separate entrance and exit to use instead of the main entrance. They also used a set of back stairs to get to the floor (called a community) they would be working on. These stairs were only used by staff.

There was an infection control lead within the home. Staff had infection prevention and control training from the clinical commissioning group (CCG). They also had internal COVID-19 training. Handwashing/hand hygiene spot checks were completed on staff.

Communal areas seen appeared uncluttered to aid with effective cleaning. Furniture in communal areas had been spread out to promote social distancing. Windows were opened to promote good ventilation.

Longueville Court provides accommodation, nursing, and personal care for up to 109 adults, some of whom may be living with dementia. It also registered to provide the regulated activity treatment, disease, disorder and injury. At the time of our inspection there were 96 people living at the service. The service is located in a village location outside of the city of Peterborough. People lived in four areas of the home depending on their needs: Robin unit, Kingfisher unit, Memory Lane and Skylark unit.

People’s experience of using this service:

Staff worked well together to ensure people were safe and well cared for. They knew the people they cared for well and understood, and met, their needs. People were protected from avoidable harm by a staff team trained and confident to recognise and report any concerns. Staff assessed and minimised any potential risks to people. Staff followed the provider’s procedures to prevent the spread of infection and reduce the risk of cross contamination. Staff managed people’s medicines safely and effectively.

The provider had systems in place to make sure they only employed staff once they had checked they were suitable to work with people who used the service. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely. The registered manager reviewed staffing levels and people needs regularly. People received care from staff who were trained and well supported to meet people’s assessed needs.

Staff supported people to have enough to eat and drink. They worked well with external professionals to support people to keep as well and healthy as possible.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

Staff were caring and respectful when they spoke with, and about, people. They supported people to develop their independence. They supported people in a person-centred way and met each person’s specific needs. People and their relatives were involved in their, or their family member's, care reviews. They and contributed to their care plans and how their care was delivered.

People’s care plans were detailed and provided staff guidance on how to meet each person’s needs. People’s needs were constantly reviewed, and their care was adapted as required. Staff supported people with their interests and to take part in socially and culturally relevant activities. People benefitted from strong links staff had forged with the local community. Staff worked closely with people, their relatives, and external healthcare professionals to ensure people’s end of life needs and wishes were supported and met.

People and their relatives felt able to raise concerns which the registered manager addressed. The registered manager and staff were committed to providing a high-quality and person-centred service. Communication with people, their relatives, and professionals was open and transparent. The provider and registered manager had embedded governance systems in place that helped ensure that staff delivered a high-quality service, which met people’s needs and kept them safe.

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was Good (published 20 June 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.

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

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. 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 16 May 2017 and was an unannounced inspection. At the last inspection on 14 August 2014, 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 looked after by staff in a kind and caring manner. Staff encouraged people to make their own choices. People’s privacy and dignity were promoted by staff 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 and their relatives/ advocates were involved in the setting up and agreement of their/their family members care plans. People’s care arrangements took account of people’s wishes including their likes and dislikes. Care plans informed staff of people’s individual needs and recorded people’s choices, 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 were looked after by enough, suitably qualified staff to support them safely with their individual needs. Staff enjoyed their work and were supported and managed to look after people. Staff understood people’s needs and they were trained to provide effective, safe care. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and were supported to maintain their skills by way of supervision and appraisals. Pre-employment checks were completed on new staff members before they were deemed to be suitable to look after people living 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.

The service was flexible and responsive to people’s needs. People maintained contact with their relatives and friends and staff encouraged people to maintain their links with 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.

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.

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

Arrangements were in place to ensure the quality of the service provided for people was regularly monitored. People who lived at the service, their relatives and staff 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.

People told us that they were treated well and with respect. We found no person wearing clothing that belonged to other people who used the service.

There were effective management systems in place to ensure that people's health risks of choking and falling were minimised. People who we spoke with had positive comments to make about the standard and quality of the support and care provided. Work was in progress to ensure that valuing people's choices about their preferred times of going to bed and getting up, would improve.

People were protected from the health risks associated with the taking of inadequate food and drink. People told us that the food was very good and confirmed that they always had plenty to eat and drink.

People who we spoke with had no concerns about the standard of cleaning of the home. There were effective systems in place to make sure people lived in a clean and comfortable home.

Equipment was safe and available to meet people's individual health and safety needs. People told us that they were satisfied with how they were supported with the use of equipment.

We looked at seven out of 99 care plans that clearly explained how a person preferred to be supported. We saw information about the choices that people who used the service had made, showing people were fully consulted at every stage.

We spoke with a staff member who was able to describe the process for obtaining, storing, administering and disposing of medicines and found that people who used the service were protected from the unsafe use and management of medicines.

We spoke with people who used the service and four visitors, including a healthcare professional about the care staff. Visitors told us that staff did not take long to answer a call bell and they did not hear bells ringing around the home for any length of time on their visits.