Archived: RNID Action on Hearing Loss Leopold Muller Home

Bedrooms, bathrooms and toilets were located on the ground, first and second floors and a lift was available for access. Communal areas were on the ground and first floor, including lounge areas, large dining room and outdoor spaces.

At our last inspection in June 2016, the service was rated 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.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good:

People and their relatives were complimentary about the service, the care received, and the staff team.

Relatives told us that they were consulted and informed about people’s care. Records were clear and reflected people's needs and preferences. Risk assessments were in place to support people safely whilst ensuring people’s independence was promoted.

People enjoyed the food provided, and staff supported people to eat and drink where needed. Care records gave guidance about support needs and preferences. People’s dietary needs had been assessed by specialists where necessary.

People had access to a range of specialist and routine healthcare services.

People's medicines were administered as prescribed and managed safely by suitably trained staff. However, recording the application of creams and ointments was inconsistent. This was discussed with nursing staff and changes to improve recording and compliance with policy were explored immediately.

There was a positive and enthusiastic staff team who felt supported and worked well as a team.

Staff knew people well, and were caring and patient. Staff received training and support to ensure people received safe and effective care.

The provider ensured that there were enough staff, although some were regular relief or agency staff. The service was recruiting new staff, and followed effective procedures to ensure prospective staff were suitable to work in the service.

Systems were in place to monitor and review the quality of the service. There was regular monitoring of health and safety, incidents and accidents as well as regular equipment checks and maintenance.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Leopold Muller Home provides accommodation and nursing care to deaf people who have complex care needs. At the time of our inspection there were 18 people living at the service.

A registered manager was not in post at the time of inspection. 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 manager was currently processing their registered manager’s application with the Commission.

People’s rights were being upheld in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This is a legal framework to protect people who are unable to make certain decisions for themselves. We saw information in people’s support plans about mental capacity and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS applications had been applied for appropriately. These safeguards aim to protect people living in care homes from being inappropriately deprived of their liberty.

People had their physical and mental health needs monitored. All care records that we viewed showed people had access to healthcare professionals according to their specific needs.

Where appropriate, people were encouraged to maintain contact with their family and were therefore not isolated from those people closest to them.

Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s needs and this ensured people were supported safely. Staff we spoke with felt the staffing level was appropriate. People were supported with their medicines by staff and people had their medicines when they needed them.

People received effective care from the staff that supported them. Staff were caring towards people and there was a good relationship between people and staff. People and their representatives were involved in the planning of their care and support. Staff demonstrated and in-depth understanding of the needs and preferences of the people they cared for. Specific cultural requirements were respected and enabled by the service, such as dietary requirements.

Support provided to people met their needs. Supporting records highlighted personalised information about what was important to people and how to support them. People were involved in activities of their choice.

There were systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.

We saw that there was clear information on how to make a safeguarding referral available to staff. The manager was able to identify who to contact to make a referral.

We spoke with the manager and deputy and they told us that there was a system in place for regular updates in safeguarding training. We saw that the home had clear policies and procedures in place. Staff members spoken with were able to demonstrate an understanding of safeguarding procedures and the whistle blowing policy.

We saw staff training was discussed at supervision and the training matrix was regularly updated. This meant the manager was aware of the training needs of the staff team to ensure they met people's care needs. Evidence in the staff files confirmed each staff member had received yearly appraisals.

People who use the service that we met and talked with at the home said they felt their care was "good". We saw people had a choice of menus and people were encouraged to choose their clothes and daily activities.

We read four peoples care plans so we could find out how people were supported with their care needs. We saw the care plans included one page profiles about people who used the service. These included example of a 'good' and 'bad' day and how these were experienced by each person. The care plans included actions staff must follow to help the person to live their daily life to their maximum potential.

We saw the middle bathroom was in need of attention to make it a pleasant and hygienic room in the home. We saw the other three bathrooms were clean and hygienic. Particularly the brand new bathroom with a specialised bath.

As staff member told us the manager was very supportive and there was sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs.

We saw there was a robust complaints system available for people who used the service. The manager responded quickly and effectively to any complaints or concerns people had about the service.