Lower St Helens

Lower St Helens is a residential care home providing personal care to up to four people. The service provides support to people who have learning disabilities or autism. At the time of our inspection there were four people using the service.

We found the following examples of good practice.

For the duration of the pandemic, no staff or people using the service had a positive COVID-19 test.

The provider had robust entry requirements for visitors to the service. All had to produce either a clear LFD or take one on arrival waiting outside until the results were visible. They had to complete health and contact questionnaires, have their temperature recorded and be fully vaccinated. There was also sanitising hand gel available for use at the entry.

The premises were very clean, there were thorough cleaning schedules completed. Frequently touched areas including door handles, bannisters, taps and toilet flushers were all sanitised three times each day which records evidenced.

People had been accepting of staff wearing face masks and had all been willing to wear then when accessing the community. There had been no issues around communication as a result of wearing face masks. People had been supported to understand why additional infection prevention and control measures such as wearing face masks and cleaning more than usual through use of easy read materials.

Though there had been no cases of COVID-19 in the service, contingency plans were in place to safeguard people should there be an outbreak. At the start of the pandemic, staff ensured there was sufficient social distance within the communal areas of the service, for example, the dining table was measured to ensure adequate distance between people and they were encouraged to use the same seat at the table to minimise cross infection.

A person attended day services twice per week and staff ensured they sanitised their hands and wore a mask when they went. On return, their clothing was laundered, masks disposed of and their bag sanitised to minimise the risk of contaminants.

In the event of an outbreak, staffing could be increased through use of both bank staff and agency staff. If needed, the provider would block book staff to ensure continuity. Staff had been trained in using personal protective equipment, PPE and infection prevention and control (IPC). There were also arrangements for staff to access the premises through the front door and sanitise and add a face masks and then go directly to the laundry where they could don and doff any other necessary PPE.

The provider had supported staff throughout the pandemic. There was a staff held phone line where they could get advice or services such as counselling and the provider asked staff who were off sick to contact them at intervals in order to stay in touch and updated about their well-being.

To enhance people’s well-being during the pandemic, the provider researched and used different therapies including aromatherapy and light therapy. For example, at breakfast time each day, light therapy lamps were used for 15 minutes. Usually used to prevent seasonal affective disorder, this was used to improve mood and wellness usually found from exposure to the sun. Aromatherapy was used to stimulate and relax people.

The provider had ensured ample PPE was available to services. There had been no shortfalls throughout the pandemic and sufficient stock was held should an outbreak happen.

We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines.

Lower St Helens provide accommodation and personal care and support for up to four adults who have learning disabilities. There were four people living in the home at the time of our inspection.

At the last inspection on 24 September 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There was a friendly atmosphere in the home and staff supported people in a kind and caring way that took account of their individual needs and preferences. People and their families were supported to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their care and support.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from harm, including how medicines were managed. Staff were trained in how to recognise and respond to abuse and understood their responsibility to report any concerns to the management team.

Safe recruitment practices were followed and appropriate checks had been undertaken, which made sure only suitable staff were employed to care for people in the home. There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs.

Staff were supported to provide appropriate care to people because they were trained, supervised and appraised. There was an induction, training and development programme, which supported staff to gain relevant knowledge and skills.

People were supported to have 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 received regular and on-going health checks and support to attend appointments. They were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs and to make informed choices about what they ate.

The service was responsive to people’s needs and staff listened to what they said. Staff were prompt to raise issues about people’s health and people were referred to health professionals when needed. People could be confident that any concerns or complaints they raised would be dealt with.

There was an open and inclusive culture within the service. There were a range of systems in place to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service and to ensure people were receiving appropriate support.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.