Magna Road

We found the following examples of good practice.

People had been supported to understand COVID-19, social distancing, national restrictions and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). There was easy read guidance and social stories on topics such as PPE, hand washing, keeping safe and the vaccine.

Processes for visitors were in place including a visitor booking system, the provision of PPE and verbal and written guidance. Visitors undertook lateral flow tests, which was a rapid results test for COVID-19 within 30 minutes. Time was allowed for deep cleaning between visits.

People’s mental wellbeing had been protected during the pandemic. Explanatory letters enabled people to go out for activities where this was required for their physical and mental health. A garden project was underway, and staff had considered how they could support people to continue with their interests during the pandemic. This included art projects, the purchase of a trampoline and garden games. The provider was proactive in providing innovative and creative activity resources for people.

Staff were supported to maintain their mental and physical wellbeing. There were ongoing organisational conversations about mental health and the provider paid staff in full if they were unwell or needed to self-isolate. They had also paid for taxis to enable staff to get to work safely. The registered manager said they were extremely well supported by the provider commenting, “Whatever I need, it’s just there. I am very proud of the company and how they have supported people, staff and families”.

Staff had received training in putting on and taking off PPE, COVID-19 and infection prevention and control. Staff understood the action they needed to take protect people from the risk of infection and learning from an outbreak of COVID-19 at Magna Road had been implemented across the organisation.

Staff had a plentiful supply of PPE and were observed wearing this appropriately during the inspection. The home was visibly clean, free from clutter and robust cleaning schedules were in place. Robust COVID-19 risk assessments were in place including actions taken to mitigate risk. Infection prevention and control (IPC) audits were carried out regularly and action taken where necessary.

Staff were supported by an up to date IPC policy which provided detailed guidance. Regular infection prevention and control audits were completed, and records showed staff had acted on the findings.

Magna Road is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Magna Road accommodates up to seven adults with a learning disability in one building. The ground floor is wheelchair accessible. There were six people living there when we inspected.

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. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

The service had a positive, person-centred, open and inclusive culture, with good relationships amongst people and staff.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect. People’s privacy was respected, and their independence promoted.

People were protected from abuse and neglect. They felt safe living at Magna Road. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding adults.

People’s care and support was delivered in a way that met their diverse needs and promoted equality.

Staff worked hard to establish people’s preferences and went the extra mile to help them find more hobbies and interests. Arrangements for activities were varied and adapted according to people’s individual needs. People had over the past year had become busier and more content.

Staff had gone the extra mile to minimise the adverse impacts of severe weather on people earlier in the year. This included staying over, assisting colleagues to get to work and arranging imaginative in-house activities.

People and where appropriate their families were involved in developing their care and support plans. This had resulted in people having successful planned transitions to the service from their previous accommodation.

Social contact and companionship was encouraged, which helped to protect people from social isolation. Staff supported people to keep in touch with their families and friends, and to maintain community links. People regularly visited community facilities.

People were supported to live healthier lives as they chose and got the support they needed to manage their health. Staff ensured there were healthy food options and encouraged people to keep active and to maintain friendships and interests.

Staff were aware of the importance of respecting people’s choices. They constantly consulted people and supported them to make choices. They worked within the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where appropriate, applications had been made to the relevant authorising body to deprive people of their liberty.

People were involved in decisions about how to manage risks they faced. Their risk assessments were person-centred, proportionate and reviewed regularly.

There were elements of outstanding practice in relation to managing behaviour that challenged. People who had a history of behaviour that challenged had a personalised positive behaviour support plan. This supported them to have as much control as possible over their lives, so they did not feel the need to behave in a challenging way. Staff noticed when people were showing signs of being upset and swiftly provided care and support.

There were elements of outstanding practice in relation to meeting people’s individual needs through the adaptation, design and decoration of the premises, indoors and outdoors. People were encouraged to get involved in decorating and furnishing, provided they were happy to do so. The garden had evolved according to people’s needs and wishes. It was now an attractive and welcoming space, which people spent much time enjoying. People and staff all took pride in it.

The premises and equipment were regularly maintained. They were kept clean and in good condition.

People’s medicines were managed consistently and safely.

The control and prevention of infection were managed well.

There were always enough suitably skilled staff on duty. People were supported by familiar staff who understood their needs and got along with them.

Staff had the skills and knowledge they needed to perform their roles. They were supported through supervision and appraisal.

There were checks to ensure new staff were of good character and suitable for their role.

Staff morale was good, having improved with the arrival of the registered manager a year before.

People, relatives and staff had confidence in the leadership of the service.

The registered manager and staff had a shared understanding of challenges, achievements, concerns and risks affecting the service.

Organisational values were clearly communicated to staff through the ‘You Can’ supervision process and through communications from senior management, such as the staff newsletter. Two staff at Magna Road had won recognition as regional employees of the month for building team morale and overcoming challenges.

Quality assurance processes were in place to drive continuous improvement. Significant events, such as accidents, incidents, safeguarding and complaints, were monitored by the registered manager and by the provider for developing trends.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies to support care provision.

Information about how to raise a complaint was available in written and easy-read versions, and complaints were taken seriously.

At the last inspection in November 2015 the overall rating for Magna Road was Good.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 5 April 2017 to follow up on the actions taken to address the breach of regulation in relation to the premises. This was because at the last inspection the carpet in the lounge was stained, had an iron burn mark in it and smelt unpleasant. The walls were damaged and needed to be repaired.

At this inspection the maintenance and cleanliness of the service had improved. The carpets and sofas had been replaced and the walls had been repaired.

There were systems in place to safeguard people from abuse.

Medicines were managed safely and stored securely. People received their medicines as prescribed by their GP.

Risks to people’s safety were assessed and managed to minimise risks.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

There were robust systems in place for the maintenance of the building and equipment.

At this inspection we changed the rating for the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ from Requires Improvement to Good. The overall rating for the service remained Good.

At this inspection there were two people living at Magna Road. We spoke with the regional manager, the manager and two staff. We observed staff supporting one person who had complex needs and ways of communicating.

We found care and treatment was assessed, planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. This was because full assessments and care plans had been completed and this meant that staff had the information to be able to provide the care and support people needed.

There were two people living at the home at the time of the inspection. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service. This included looking at records kept about people. This was because they had complex needs which meant they were unable to tell us about themselves.

We spoke with three staff, the regional manager and acting manager. The registered manager was not present at the inspection.

Care and treatment was not assessed, planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. This was because assessments and care plans had not been fully completed and this meant that staff did not have the information to be able to provide the care and support people needed.

We found that people were admitted into the home before it was registered.

There were enough staff to meet people's needs. However, there had not been sufficient qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet the needs of the all the people who had been initially admitted into the home.