Archived: Legh House

We found the following examples of good practice.

Senior staff had disseminated training to all staff, although competency was not recorded formally. The registered manager assured us they would address this and introduce a record of checks on staff competency with PPE. Following our inspection, we received an update from the registered manager outlining that all staff were commencing additional online training and that the Infection Prevention and Control validation of practice competency had been introduced for all staff.

Whilst the layout of the building, with bedrooms off one long corridor, made it difficult for people to always maintain social distancing; people were reminded of the need to maintain space in ways they understood. Cleaning measures were in place to reduce the risks posed by the environment.

The registered manager assured us that an infection control lead was being put in place in the home in line with their policy.

People were supported to understand the measures that were in place to keep them safe in ways that were meaningful to them.

Staff were committed to keeping people safe. They understood the importance of wearing appropriate PPE and ensuring all additional cleaning measures were maintained.

People were supported to maintain contact with people who mattered to them.

Legh House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered to accommodate up to 19 older people in one adapted building. Nursing care is not provided by staff at Legh House. This is provided by the community nursing service. At the time of this inspection there were 18 people living in the home.

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.’

At our last inspection in February 2016 we rated the service good overall and requires improvement in Effective. At this inspection in April 2018 we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good overall and the rating in Effective had improved to good. 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.

Legh House provided elderly people living with dementia and other health conditions with accommodation, care and support. People were protected from risks relating to their health, their dementia related behaviours, mobility, medicines, nutrition and possible abuse. Staff had assessed individual risks to people and had taken action to seek guidance and minimise identified risks. Staff knew how to recognise possible signs of abuse.

Where accidents and incidents had taken place, these had been reviewed and action had been taken to reduce the risks of reoccurrence. Staff supported people to take their medicines safely and staffs’ knowledge relating to the administration of medicines were regularly checked. Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns.

Recruitment procedures were in place to help ensure only people of good character were employed by the home. The registered manager was working towards updating their staff files and ensuring all necessary paperwork was available. Staff underwent Disclosure and Barring Service (police record) checks before they started work. Staffing numbers at the home were sufficient to meet people’s needs. Staff had the competencies and information they required in order to meet people’s needs. Staff received sufficient training. The registered manager was working on improving the regularity and content of staff supervisions and appraisal.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect. We found staff had caring attitudes towards people and spoke highly of them, their personalities and qualities. There was a warm and pleasant atmosphere at the home where people and staff shared jokes and laughter. Staff knew people and their preferences well. People’s comments included, “All the staff are lovely” and “They are so kind.”

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and put it into practice. Where people had been unable to make a particular decision at a particular time, their capacity had been assessed and best interests decisions had taken place and had been recorded. Where people were being deprived of their liberty for their own safety the registered manager had made Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications to the local authority.

People’s individual needs were identified and staff worked hard to meet these. Comments from people included, “It was the best decision I could have made to come here. The carers are great and I feel well looked after” and “I love it here, it’s better than my own home.” People were supported to have enough to eat and drink in ways that met their needs and preferences.

There was open and effective management at Legh House. People, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals were asked for their feedback and suggestions in order to improve the service. There were effective systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the care and support being delivered.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

There was no registered manager in post at the time of our 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 long term manager had left in October 2015 and a new manager was recruited who stayed for two months. The provider was actively recruiting to find a suitable candidate to take on the role.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had not been applied for when people did not have the mental capacity to consent to living in the home. Senior staff ensured that this was addressed immediately following our inspection.

People were engaged with activities that reflected individual preferences, including individual and group activities. Activities were provided by care staff and people’s individual preferences had been sought and recorded. Three people told us they would like more activities to be available.

Staff were consistent in their knowledge of people’s care needs and spoke with confidence about the care they provided to meet these needs. They told us they felt supported in their roles and had taken training that provided them with the necessary knowledge and skills. Not all training had been completed at the time of our inspection. There was a plan in place to ensure staff received refresher training as deemed necessary by the provider. Staff had not received formal supervision in line with the provider’s policy.

Staff understood how people consented to the care they provided and encouraged people to make decisions about their care. Care plans did not reflect that care was being delivered within the framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when people did not have capacity to make decisions for themselves. However, staff showed they understood the importance of enabling people to make their own decisions wherever possible and providing care that is in a person’s best interests.

Quality assurance had led to improvements being made and people, relatives and staff were invited to contribute to this process. Where improvements were identified following feedback from external agencies action had been taken or plans were in place to ensure they happened. Some monitoring had stopped with the arrival of the new manager in November 2015 and no new guidance had been agreed about how to continue with this work. There had been a number of changes introduced at this time and the senior staff were not certain about which to continue implementing or how to develop systems further before a new registered manager was appointed. The provider was aware of this and weekly visits to the home had been introduced to deliver additional oversight during the period before a new registered manager could be appointed. Staff and people were positive about the abilities of the deputies providing day to day management of the home.

People felt safe. They were protected from harm because staff understood the risks they faced and how to reduce these risks. They also knew how to identify and respond to abuse. They knew how to access the contact details of agencies they should report concerns about people’s care to. Care and treatment was delivered in a way that met people’s individual needs. Staff kept records about the care they provided.

People had access to health care professionals and were supported to maintain their health by staff. Staff understood changes in people’s health and shared the information necessary for people to receive safe care. People received their medicines as they were prescribed.

People described the food as good and there were systems in place to ensure people had enough food to eat and enough to drink.

People were positive about the care they received at the home and told us the staff were kind. Staff treated people and visitors with respect and kindness throughout our inspection.

There was a breach of regulation relating to people not being deprived of their liberty without lawful authority. You can see the action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We spoke with three people who live at the home. People told us that they understood the care choices available to them, and could have their views taken into account in the way their care was delivered. A person told us, 'They always ask before they do anything.'

We found that people's needs were assessed, and care was planned and delivered to meet people's needs. A person told us, 'I know I've got a care plan. I've seen it. I get the services they said I would get.'

People were protected from the risk of abuse and their human rights were respected and upheld. A person told us, "The staff are very kind and friendly."

We viewed a selection of staff records, and saw that relevant checks had been carried out when the home employed staff. Staff had opportunities to gain appropriate qualifications. A person told us, 'The staff are very good.'

The provider had appropriate systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of care people received. The registered manager told us, "I monitor people's comments on a daily basis. It's a way of keeping me in the loop."

The registered manager was on leave on the day of our visit. We spoke to the registered manager on the telephone following our visit.

administration and recording, and we issued a warning notice.

During this inspection, we found that there were improvements in the way medicines were

managed since our previous inspection. We saw that medicines were kept and

administered safely, and people received their medicines in the correct way. Appropriate

arrangements were in place in relation to the recording of medicines.

People we spoke with told us that they received their medicines when they were needed, and that they were given by staff in a caring way

People who used the service were treated with dignity and respect. One person told us "Staff are very respectful. I love it here." People told us that staff always knocked their door before entering and asked them when they want to get up.

People who used the service told us that they were given their medicines when they needed them. People also told us that only staff who had been trained in administering medicines were able to give them out. However we found that the home did not protect people from the risks associated with medicines as records were not consistently maintained.