Archived: Parkside Lodge Residential Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

The provider had robust measures in place to help prevent or minimise the risk of people who lived, worked and visited the care home catching or spreading COVID-19.

Access to the care home remained restricted, although one designated person could now visit their family member or friend who was living in the care home. All visitors to the care home had to follow the care homes infection prevention and control (IPC) guidance. For example, visits had to be pre-arranged, and on arrival were required to have a COVID-19 test if they had not been tested recently, have their temperature taken, wash and sanitize their hands and wear appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

Alternative arrangements remained in place to help people maintain relationships with people that were important to them. For example, people were actively supported by staff to keep in touch with people that could not visit the care home in-person via telephone and video calls. Furthermore, the provider had erected a pod in the garden, which had been partitioned in two using a transparent Perspex screen, allowing family members to safely meet face-to-face outside even in poor weather.

There were suitable arrangements in place to ensure any new admissions to the care home or people returning after a stay in hospital for example, were tested for COVID-19 before being allowed to enter the premises and then self-isolate in their bedroom for at least 14 days.

The provider was participating in a ‘whole home’ COVID-19 testing program. This ensured everyone living and working in the care home were regularly tested for COVID-19. For example, staff were tested for COVID-19 at least twice a week. The provider knew how to apply for COVID-19 home testing kits and had adequate supplies.

Staff used PPE safely and in accordance with current IPC guidance. We observed managers and staff wearing their PPE correctly throughout our inspection. Staff had received up to date IPC and COVID-19 training, which was being routinely refreshed every 3 to 6 months. The service had adequate supplies of PPE that meet current demand and foreseen outbreaks.

The care home looked and smelt clean. There were detailed records kept of staffs new cleaning schedules, which included a rolling program of continuously cleaning high touch surfaces, such as light switches, grab rails and door handles. Managers told us they had employed an additional cleaner during the pandemic to help with their increased cleaning responsibilities. People’s bedrooms, the main communal areas, kitchen and laundry room were subject to regular enhanced deep-cleans.

The provider had thoroughly assessed infection risks to everyone living and working in the care home and where people were deemed to be disproportionately at risk from COVID-19, appropriate action had been taken to minimise the impact. For example, staff with underlying health care conditions or members of black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups, had not been allowed to work on the floor where people who had tested positive for COVID-19 had been isolating.

Managers were aware of good practice in relation to temporary agency or bank staff only working in one care setting currently to reduce the risk of spreading infection. For example, the only two bank staff the service currently used had agreed to work exclusively at Parkside Lodge Residential Home during the pandemic and not work in any other care setting. To help staff stay safe face-to-face individual and group meetings with staff were held in large communal areas where people could sit safely socially distanced. Group handovers meetings at the end of each shift had also been suspended and replaced with just the shift leaders meeting safely socially distanced in a large communal space.

There were IPC and PPE policies and procedures in place, which were regularly updated to reflect ongoing changes to COVID-19 related guidance and were followed by staff. This included contingency plans for managing adverse events, such as COVID-19 outbreaks and staff shortages. Managers and senior staff routinely monitored and audited compliance with IPC practices including, daily walkabout tours of the care home to check staff continued to wear their PPE correctly and high touch surfaces were being continuously cleaned. The service had also introduced a regular Newsletter to keep people living in the care home, their relatives and staff up to date about changing COVID-19 guidance. For example, one Newsletter we looked at explained the self-isolation process in the care home to relatives and how they could remain in contact with their loved ones and help alleviate them from feeling lonely.

At our last inspection we rated the service 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 on-going 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. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People were protected by staff who received regular safeguarding training and knew how to recognise and report and concerns. Staff felt confident that the manager would respond to any concerns raised.

Medicines were managed, stored, given to people as prescribed and disposed of safely. Policies and procedures were in place to ensure the safe ordering, administration, storage and disposal of medicines.

Safe recruitment practices were followed. Disclosure and Barring Service checks (DBS) had been requested and were present in all checked records. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of liberty Safeguards (DoLs) which apply to care homes. People’s rights were upheld as the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been adhered to.

People spoke positively of the quality of the food. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and those at risk were weighed on a monthly or weekly basis and referrals or advice was sought when needed. People’s hydration needs were met.

Staff encouraged people to remain as independent as possible. Staff knew people well and they were treated in a dignified and respectful way.

People received responsive care which was personalised to their individual preferences. Staff knew the importance of ensuring that people were involved in the decisions regarding their care.

There were a range of audits and quality assurance systems in place to ensure people received quality care.

The homes had recently recruited a new manager. Currently the manager was fulfilling all the responsibilities of a registered manager while awaiting the outcome of their application.

Staff told us the home was well led and spoke positively of the manager. People and relatives also told us that the atmosphere within the home was more positive and relaxed since they started in post. The provider ensured that the necessary support was in place for the manager. The manager had submitted an application to the Care Quality Commission to become the registered manager.

We found people's nutritional needs were being met and supported and we found appropriate systems in place for the management of medicines.

During our inspection we spoke with four people who use the service. They us told us that they were happy at Parkside Lodge. One individual told us "this is the best care home in the area".

We observed warm and positive interaction between staff and people who use the service. One of the care team told us that staff worked to create a "friendly environment." Another care assistant told us "I work with a brilliant team".

We inspected records of staffing and found the service was operating effective recruitment procedures when employing staff at the home. Staff had received training and supervision to provide them with the knowledge and skills to meet the needs of the people living at the service.

We viewed the complaints records and policy and found the service was taking appropriate steps to investigate and manage complaints received.

People's support was planned and delivered in line with people's assessed needs and preferences. People and their relatives were involved in care planning. The manager regularly reviewed and updated people's care records to ensure they were accurate and fit for purpose.

People told us that Parkside Lodge was a safe place to live and an environment where concerns and complaints could be raised. We found that people were safeguarded against the risk of abuse and neglect because staff understood how to identify and report concerns. The provider responded appropriately to complaints and safeguarding concerns.

Staff had received appropriate training and support to ensure they carried out their roles effectively. Members of staff felt supported in their roles.

There were appropriate systems in place to assess the quality of the home and respond to any concerns.