Archived: 83 Tennyson Road

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The home was clean and was well ventilated.

¿ People and staff were in receipt of weekly testing. The home had had no COVID-19 cases since the start of the pandemic.

¿ Staff and visiting professionals were supported to safely enter the home. A good supply of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) stock was maintained in the home and the registered manager monitored this on a regular basis.

¿ When people moved into the home or returned from hospital, the registered manager asked them to isolate in their bedrooms, for a set period even if they had a negative test. This promoted people's safety in case a person developed symptoms after they had moved in.

83 Tennyson Road is a care home providing accommodation and personal care to up to four people with mental health needs and learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were four people using the service. The service is located in central Luton and shares a joint manager and staff team with another registered service on the same street.

There was a 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.

People were kept safe and risk assessments were completed which identified ways in which any risk of harm could be reduced. People were encouraged to maintain and develop their independence and to engage in a range of activities. They had enough to eat and drink and maintained a healthy and balanced diet.

Care plans were detailed, person-centred and regularly reviewed with the input of people and their relatives. People’s healthcare needs were identified and they were supported to attend regular appointments with professionals where required. People were able to tell us about ways in which the service had helped to improve their mental health and supported them in the community. People’s medicines were stored and administered safely by trained and competent staff.

Staff were caring, committed and understood people’s needs well. They received a range of training which was specific and specialised to enable them to offer effective support to people. New staff were recruited safely to the service and undertook a full induction. The manager regularly supervised and undertook performance reviews with staff to support their continued development. Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and were able to describe how these affected people using the service. People had a named key worker who met with them regularly to discuss their care. People were treated with dignity and respect.

People and staff were positive about the manager of the service and felt well supported. Regular audits were carried out by the provider to ensure that documentation was up to date and that any improvements that needed to be made were resolved promptly. Records were well maintained and subject to regular review to ensure they contained only the most up to date information. The service had a positive culture that promoted empowerment and independence and was responsive to people’s changing needs. Regular meetings were held which provided people and staff with opportunities to discuss issues relating to the service, and these meetings were used to drive continual improvement.

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

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

Is the service safe?

We found that the home had procedures in place so that incidents/allegations of abuse or neglect could be responded to appropriately. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding processes and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and whistleblowing process.

Is the service effective?

We found that the home had processes in place to ensure that staff were appropriately inducted. This enabled them to deliver care and support to people to an appropriate standard.

Is the service caring?

We found that people had a good rapport with staff and looked comfortable in their company. People described staff as, 'nice' and 'caring.'

The majority of the people spoken with said that staff spoke with them in a calm and respectful manner.

Is the service responsive?

We found that people were provided with monthly one to one meetings. At those meetings they were encouraged by staff to express their views about their care and support and they were acted on.

Is the service well led?

Staff spoken with said that the manager was supportive and acted on suggestions made to improve the quality of the care. They said that they felt well-led and were aware of what was expected of them. This meant that staff took accountability for their actions.

We spoke with two people who used the service, one staff member and the registered manager.

People spoken with said that they were pleased with the refurbishment which had taken place. One person said, 'I like the bright pink. It's a good idea to mix and match the colours.' Another person said, 'It's a nice colour. The staff helped us to choose it.'

We carried out a tour of the premises and found that the provider had taken action to ensure that people and staff were protected against the risks associated with unsafe or unsuitable premises.

We found that people received their medicines at the appropriate time. However, medication administration (MAR) sheets were not always completed appropriately in line with best practice guidelines.

We found that areas of the premises were not appropriately maintained. Therefore, people were not protected against the risks associated with unsafe or unsuitable premises.

The home's recruitment procedure ensured that people were cared for by staff who were suitably qualified and fit to do their job.

The home had systems in place to ensure people's comments or complaints were carefully considered and responded to appropriately.

We observed that people were offered support at a level which encouraged independence and assured that their individual needs were met safely. The staff were friendly and professional in their approach, and interacted confidently with people.

There was a relaxed atmosphere in the home, and everyone had a responsibility to contribute to the household chores to ensure the environment was clean, tidy and comfortable. People were also encouraged to cook for themselves if they wished. One person said. "I cook my own curries which go in the freezer".

We noted that people expressed their views and were involved in planning their care and making decisions about their support and treatment. Each person knew who their 'link worker' was, and we could see from records that they worked closely with them, and were consulted about all aspects of life in this home. Within the care files we saw that care documentation was all clearly signed by the individual to confirm their involvement and agreement with their particular care needs.