Langley House

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The provider had appropriate arrangements for visiting to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. Visitors were required to arrange an appointment on specific days to visit and declare if they had any symptoms of COVID-19. Visitors were required to take a COVID-19 test prior to coming in the home and their temperatures were checked to minimise potential of infection being brought into the home. A dedicated room had been set up with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) station for visits. Visits were staggered and areas were cleaned between visits.

¿ The provider had appropriate arrangements to test people and staff for COVID-19 and was following government guidance on regular testing. Measures were in place if staff or people tested positive for COVID-19 to ensure safety.

¿ The service ensured that staff received appropriate training and support to manage COVID-19. All staff had received training on COVID-19, infection control and the use of PPE. Systems were in place to support staff if they became unwell and when they returned to work.

¿ Adequate supply of PPE was in place and systems were in place to ensure there was not a shortfall of PPE. We observed staff wearing PPE and people were supported to maintain social distancing.

¿ People’s temperature was taken twice daily to check they had not developed symptoms. Systems were in place to ensure people were safe if their temperature went above recommended levels.

¿ A cleaning schedule was in place to ensure the home was clean and tidy. There was ventilation throughout the home and the home had bought specialist equipment to ventilate and purify the air. Disinfectant sprays were also used throughout the home to remove virus and bacteria.

Langley House is a care home registered to accommodate and support up to 25 elderly people. At the time of the inspection, 25 people were living at the home. The service is a two-floor building. Each floor has separate adapted facilities.

People’s experience of using this service

Care plans contained suitable and sufficient risk assessments to effectively manage risks and help keep people safe. Pre-employment checks had been carried out to ensure staff were suitable to support people safely. People told us they felt safe at the home and staff were aware of how to safeguard people from abuse. There were appropriate numbers of staff to support people when required. Medicines were being managed safely. Systems were in place to record incidents and take appropriate action.

Staff had completed essential training to perform their roles effectively and felt supported in their roles. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People received care from staff who were caring and had a good relationship with them. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity.

People received person centred care. Care plans had been reviewed regularly to ensure they were accurate. Although activities were held, these were not structured to ensure activities were regular. People told us they would like regular activities to support them to develop and maintain relationships to avoid social isolation. We made a recommendation in this area.

Feedback was sought from people, relatives and staff through surveys and meetings and this was used to make improvements to the home. Systems were in place for quality assurance and these were completed regularly.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

At our last inspection on 23 October 2017, the home was rated good (published 24 November 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At the last inspection on 23 and 24 July 2015 the home was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the home remained ‘Good’.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and the associated regulations on how the home is run.

Risks had been identified and assessed, which provided information to staff on how to mitigate risks to keep people safe. Medicines were being managed safely. There were sufficient staffing levels to support people. Premises safety checks had been carried out to ensure the premises was safe. Staff had been trained in safeguarding adults and knew how to keep people safe.

Staff had the knowledge, training and skills to care for people effectively. Staff received regular supervision and support to carry out their roles. People had choices during meal times and were supported with meals when required. People and relatives told us people enjoyed the food. People’s weights were regularly monitored and referrals made to health professional if there were concerns with people’s weight. People had access to healthcare services.

People and relatives told us that staff were friendly and caring. Our observations confirmed this. People were treated in a respectful and dignified manner by staff who understood the need to protect people's human rights. People had been involved with making decisions about their care.

People received care that was shaped around their individual needs, interests and preferences. Care plans were person centred and staff knew how to provide person centred care to people. People and relatives were aware of how to make complaints if they wanted to and staff knew how to manage complaints.

Staff felt well supported by the management team. People, relatives and health professionals were complimentary about the management of the home. Quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place to make continuous improvements.

The people we spoke to, and their relatives told us that people were well cared for at the home. People said that they liked living there and felt safe. One person said, 'the quality of the building would not score high marks, but the care here is brilliant. Speaks volumes.'

We saw that people were treated respectfully and that people's different needs and preferences were understood by the staff looking after them. Care was planned and delivered safely and action taken to reduce any risks. People were safe from abuse because staff were clear about what they should do if they had any concerns about people and the provider had taken the appropriate steps to ensure that staff were suitable for the work they carried out. Relatives said that they appreciated that the manager had a desk at the end of the main communal area and was always aware of how people were.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the effectiveness of the service although the results of recent surveys to gather feedback were not available on the day of our visit.

The people we spoke to said that they were content with the level of activities they had access to although there was little variety available to help ensure people remained stimulated and to maximise choice and independence.

Staff received the training and support that they needed to carry out their duties and support people who used the service. One member of staff said 'I have had the training that I need. The manager is very approachable and leads by example.' Another told us 'yes I have definitively had the right training and can ask for any that I feel I need. I have got NVQ level 2 and am doing NVQ level 3.'

The manager and the provider monitored the quality of the service to ensure that people were receiving a safe service that met their needs. We found that people who used the service and their relatives were asked for their opinions about the service and that, as far as possible, the provider addressed any issues that were raised.