Silverwood (Rotherham)

We found the following examples of good practice.

The home was well maintained and clean and hygienic. There was detailed information to inform everyone on how to use personal protective equipment (PPE). We observed staff wearing PPE appropriately. Processes were in place for staff to put on, take off and dispose of PPE when entering and leaving the home.

Tests for COVID-19 were being carried out in line with guidance. Staff were regularly tested and tests had helped the provider identify and take action to deal with an outbreak of COVID-19.

Visitors were effectively prevented from catching and spreading infection by staff who followed the provider's infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures. The provider was following guidance on visiting and where visiting was not permitted, such as during an outbreak of infection, window visits were being facilitated.

The provider had a record of staffs’ vaccination status. Checks were in place to help prevent visitors to the home spreading the COVID-19 infection; such as a health questionnaire, along with a check of vaccination status and a test for COVID-19 prior to entering the home.

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The home had robust systems in place to support relatives to visit their family members, minimising the risk of infection. There was a designated room to facilitate visits. Zoom calls had also been facilitated for relatives who were unable to visit and the registered manager provided weekly updates to relatives to ensure communication was maintained.

¿ The service had dedicated staff to ensure people were admitted safely and continued to be supported in the service in accordance with national guidance. They supported people and their relatives to understand the policies and procedures surrounding protection against COVID 19, the isolation processes and how the service could help them to keep people safe.

¿ The registered manager and staff had considered how to prevent social isolation during the pandemic. They had put in place additional activities to ensure peoples well-being.

¿We observed signage around the home to guide staff on the use of protective personal equipment (PPE). Processes were in place for staff to put on, take off and dispose of PPE when entering and leaving the premises. We observed staff wearing PPE appropriately. The premises were clean and hygienic.

¿ Tests for COVID-19 were being carried out in line with guidance. Staff also had regular lateral flow tests (LFT) to ensure any staff who were not presenting with any symptoms were identified promptly.

¿ Risk assessments were in place to consider and reduce any impact to people who used the service and staff who may be disproportionately at risk of COVID-19. These included Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups (BAME), people with learning disabilities and people with dementia.

Silverwood is situated approximately six miles from Rotherham. It is a purpose built home providing care for up to 64 people. The home is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care. The home has bedrooms on the first and ground level of the building. The ground level provides care to people with a diagnosis of dementia. There is ample parking and gardens to the rear of the building. On the day of our inspection there were 57 people living in the home.

There was no registered manager in place for the service. The home had a manager who was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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.

Our last inspection at Silverwood took place on 16 and 17 December 2015. The home was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

People who used the service told us they felt safe living in the home. Their relatives spoke positively about the standard of care and support their family member received.

We found people received care that was in line with their assessed risks and care plans.

The registered provider had a policy and procedure in place for the safe management of medicines. Staff were working in accordance with this policy which assisted in keeping people safe and well.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available to keep people safe and there were effective staff recruitment and selection procedures in place. Staff were appropriately trained and supervised to provide care and support to people who used the service.

People enjoyed the food provided and were supported to receive adequate food and drink to remain healthy.

People were provided with access to relevant healthcare professionals to support their health needs.

The relationships we saw between people who used the service, their relatives and friends and staff were warm and friendly. The atmosphere in the home was calm and relaxed.

People's privacy, dignity and independence were maintained by staff that were caring and respectful.

Staff knew the people they were supporting and provided a personalised service. Support plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care.

People were supported to join in with social activities they were interested in and time was spent with some people on a one to one basis. There was a plan in place to enhance and improve the range and quality of activities made available to people.

People and their relatives had been asked their opinion of the quality of the service via surveys and by the regular meetings with the managers.

Staff said communication in the home was good and they always felt able to make suggestions. There were meetings held for all staff and additional meetings for groups of staff, for example, senior care workers.

There were systems in place to continuously assess and monitor the quality of the service, with a strong emphasis on promoting and sustaining improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The service has a registered manager who has been registered with the Care Quality Commission since January 2015. 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.

Silverwood is situated approximately six miles from Rotherham. It is a purpose built home providing care for 64 people. At the time of this inspection there were 62 people living at the home. The home has bedrooms on the first and ground level of the building. The ground level provides care to people with a diagnosis of dementia. There is ample parking and gardens to the rear of the building.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were in place to protect people who may not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care or treatment.

People’s physical health was monitored as required. This included the monitoring of people’s health conditions and symptoms so appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made. We also spoke to a visiting community nurse who said, “The staff act in a timely manner to seek my advice. I think the home is well led and the care is very person centred."

There were sufficient staff with the right skills and competencies to meet the assessed needs of people living in the home. Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs and made sure they supported people to have a healthy diet, with choices of a good variety of food and drink. People we spoke with told us they enjoyed the meals and there was always something on the menu they liked.

People were able to access activities. The activity co-ordinator had developed a weekly plan of activities. People could also access religious services which were held periodically at the home. People we spoke with told us they were looking forward to the Christmas festivities.

There was a strong and visible person centred culture in the service. (Person centred means that care is tailored to meet the needs and aspirations of each individual.) We found the service had a friendly relaxed atmosphere which felt homely. Staff approached people in a kind and caring way which encouraged people to express how and when they needed support. Everyone we spoke with told us that they felt that the staff knew them and their likes and dislikes. One person said, “They understand perfectly what my requirements are.”

Staff told us they felt supported and they could raise any concerns with the registered manager and felt that they were listened to. People told us they were aware of the complaints procedure and said staff would assist them if they needed to use it. We noted from the records that one formal complaint had been received in the last 12 months and two concerns which were immediately resolved.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw copies of reports produced by the registered manager and the provider. The reports included any actions required and these were checked each month to determine progress.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, speaking with the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff, and staff were given support and guidance to ensure that they cared for people safely. People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed. People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment

Systems were in place for managers to monitor the quality of the service and make sure it was run safely

Is the service effective?

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

Care plans contained assessments of people's care and support needs. These assessments described the steps staff should take to ensure each person's needs were met. Staff received appropriate support to meet the needs of people living at the home.

Audits and reviews took place to ensure that care was delivered in a way that met people's needs.

Is the service caring?

Our observations showed that staff were caring and respectful towards people. Every care task we observed took place in a patient and kind manner. People spoke positively about their experience of receiving care at the home.

Is the service responsive?

Staff acted on people's needs and in accordance with their wishes. Where people needed specific support or care, we saw evidence that this was delivered in accordance with people's needs.

Is the service well-led?

There was a quality assurance system in place, where external staff carried out a quality monitoring programme. This was detailed and thorough.

People who used the service had a care plan which was relevant to their individual needs. People we spoke with told us they enjoyed living at the home. One person said, 'Its lovely here, I am looked after well.' We saw that people were listening to music of their choice as when a particular song was played one person said, 'I like this one, it's my favourites.' We asked one relative what they liked about the service and they said, 'It's that sense of security when you leave that you know you have left your relative in safe hands.'

We found that the home worked well with other professionals. People who used the service were supported to access other professionals when required.

We found that the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. Staff were knowledgeable about the system. We found that staff were appropriately trained in the safe administration of medication and in the use of the electronic system.

We found that people who used the service were supported by enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet their needs.

The provider had an effective system in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

We found there was an effective complaints system in place. People knew how to complain and felt their concern would be resolved.