Archived: Rose Cottage Woodford

We found the following examples of good practice.

Safe arrangements were in place for visitors to the service including professionals and others. This included a visiting area, rapid COVID-19 testing, hand washing and PPE stations.

Staff and visiting professionals were asked to provide evidence of their vaccination status against COVID-19 prior to entering the home. Visitors we spoke with were happy with the arrangements in place. We saw records which showed that appropriate checks were made for people entering the home.

A programme of testing for COVID-19 was in place for all staff and people living at the service.

Stocks of PPE (personal protective equipment) were readily accessible to staff and visitors, and regular checks were made to ensure they were being used.

Nobody living at the service had tested positive for COVID-19, however isolation plans were in place to manage the spread of infection should this occur. This meant people could self-isolate in their rooms when necessary.

Policies, procedures, risk assessments and guidance relating to COVID-19 were up to date, which supported staff to keep them and others safe. Management and staff regularly communicated to keep up to date with guidance.

Management conducted regular checks and audits to ensure the service was kept clean and tidy.

Staff were trained in infection prevention and control procedures, including the procedure for safely putting on and taking off PPE (donning and doffing).

Rose Cottage is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to 10 older people. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection there were four people receiving personal care.

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

People told us they were happy with the service they received. They spoke of the homely feel and happy atmosphere. One person said, “I’m glad I came to live here. This is my home now and I am well looked after.” Staff were caring and we observed kind interactions with people using the service. People knew the staff well and by their preferred names.

Processes were in place to protect people from avoidable harm and abuse. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to this and were clear about the way to escalate any concerns they identified. When accidents or incidents occurred, learning was identified to reduce the risk of them happening again. Sufficient staff were available to provide a timely response to people and provide safe care. People received their medicines as prescribed and medicines were managed safely.

People continued to receive effective care. Staff received training relevant to their roles and had regular supervision and an annual appraisal. People were supported to eat and drink enough and staff supported them to live healthier lives and to access healthcare services when required.

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. Consent to care was gained in line with current legislation.

Care plans supported staff to provide personalised care. People were encouraged to take part in activities and interests of their choice. There was a complaints procedure in place and systems in place to deal with complaints effectively, however the recording of complaints needed to be in line with current General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). The service provided appropriate end of life care to people when required.

The service continued to be well led. There was clear leadership and people told us they could speak with staff or the registered manager if there were issues. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service and the care provided and actions were taken to continuously improve the service.

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 12 July 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

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.

People continued to receive safe care. Staff were appropriately recruited and there were enough staff to provide care and support to people to meet their needs. People were consistently protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.

The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff had access to the support, supervision, training and ongoing professional development that they required to work effectively in their roles. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.

People developed positive relationships with the staff who were caring and treated people with respect, kindness and courtesy. People had detailed personalised plans of care in place to enable staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people’s personal preferences. People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had effective systems in place to manage any complaints that they may receive.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The registered manager was a visible role model in the home. People and their relatives told us that they had confidence in the manager’s ability to provide consistently high quality managerial oversight and leadership to the home.

People that used the service told us that they had been treated with respect and their privacy and dignity had been maintained by staff when they received care. On visitor we spoke with said, 'They always knock on the door before they enter and they are always polite.''

We found that care plans took account of people's individual needs and promoted their independence. The care plans were based on people's assessed needs and provided clear guidance to staff about the care people needed.

We found that care plans took account of people's individual needs and promoted their independence. The care plans were based on people's assessed needs and provided clear guidance to staff about the care people needed. People were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement.

We found that people were treated with dignity and respect and staff took time to listen to people. There were competent staff to support people well. People we spoke with said that staff respected them and they felt safe at all times.