Poplars

Updated 26 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.

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.

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.

This inspection took place on 09 November 2020 and was announced.

Updated 26 November 2020

Poplars is a ‘care home’ for five people with learning disabilities and/or autism. There were five people living in the home when we visited. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (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.

At our last inspection on 24 May 2016 we rated the service as overall ‘good’. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

People continued to receive a safe service. Staff were vigilant to the risks people faced and took prompt action to address any concerns. People were supported to take positive risks to increase their confidence and independence. People received their medication at the right time and there were enough staff on duty to provide the support people needed.

People continued to receive an effective service. People’s consent was obtained before care and support was delivered and staff supported people to make decisions that were in their best interests when they needed help to do so. Staff received specific training to help them carry out their role more effectively. People’s health was promoted as staff worked actively with healthcare professionals.

People continued to receive a caring service. Relationships between people and staff were respectful and based on trust and openness. Relatives were very happy with the quality of the service their loved ones were receiving and were made to feel welcome when they visited. People’s independence was promoted and encouraged wherever possible.

People continued to receive a responsive service. People’s support was delivered in line with their wishes and people had access to activities in the local community which were important and meaningful to them. People had the opportunity to express their wishes and goals and staff supported people to achieve them.

The service continued to be well-led. People, staff and relatives were all happy with the way the service was managed. The registered manager was a visible presence in the home and led the staff team to create a person centred culture in the home. Checks and audits were effective in highlighting areas for improvement and actions that were required were completed promptly.