St Matthew Road

We found the following examples of good practice.

The home was following government guidance in relation to visitors. We were told essential maintenance visits were also carried out safely. For example, all visitors wore personal protective equipment (PPE) and were advised to remain socially distant from people and staff. All essential visitors had their temperature taken on arrival and they were asked to carry out a Lateral Flow Device (LFD) Covid 19 test before they could enter the home. The results were recorded.

The registered manager followed current guidance in relation to infection prevention and control. There were cleaning schedules to be completed daily and weekly. The home had remained Covid free but had contingency plans in place should any person or staff come into contact with anyone with Covid 19 or test positive. All staff wore PPE and had received training on infection control, the putting on and taking off of PPE and hand washing. There was easy read information displayed on the notice board for people to read about Covid 19. Individual risk assessments had been written for people and staff to consider specific risks for each in relation to any underlying health conditions or any ethnic considerations.

In recent weeks there had been an occasion when one person had been in contact with someone who had tested positive for Covid 19. The registered manager told us the actions they took to ensure people and staff safety. A new staff rota was introduced to ensure there was no movement between both houses. The person concerned was isolated to their bedroom and received meals there. Bathroom and laundry facilities were changed to minimise the spread of any possible infection. The registered manager told us this had been a helpful exercise to see what worked and did not work and what would need to be changed if they had an outbreak.

Staff told us they felt well supported by the registered manager and by the organisation. The registered manager told us they met virtually with other managers from within the company and this was a good support system. They also said this gave opportunities to share ideas and seek advice on their contingency plans. Following their last meeting, the home was in the process of introducing a new tool for documenting when bedrooms were deep cleaned.

Staff ensured people who were shielding understood why this was the case. People told us they were waiting on the update from the government to tell them when things would change. They told us they were looking forward to being able to see their families and going back to day centres. One person said, “I talk to my family all the time by telephone, but I haven’t seen them for ages, and I can’t wait to see them.” Staff confirmed that people were supported to maintain contact with relatives by social media or telephone. People told us the measures in place at St Matthews kept them safe. Those who could, continued to attend day centres and went for a daily walk. A number of people had jigsaws they were doing, some enjoyed using iPads and there was a walking treadmill to ensure people could exercise daily.

The care service had 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 who used the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

St Matthew Road provided accommodation and personal care for up to 10 people who had learning disabilities and some associated physical and/or sensory disabilities. Nine people used the service at the time of inspection. Some people had their own flats, which included their own kitchen and bathrooms. There was a kitchen, dining-room and large lounge for people to relax in. People had access to two large gardens and one person had their own smaller garden space. There was also a newly refurbished summer house for relaxing or having parties in.

At our last inspection in December 2016, the service was rated ‘Good’ overall. At this inspection there was a new provider. We found the service remained Good.

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.

People were kept safe by staff that were knowledgeable of potential risks to their safety. There were robust risk assessments and regular checks of the building to ensure it was safe for people to live in. People received their medicines from trained and competent staff. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited safely and people were involved with the recruitment process to ensure the right staff were employed. Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored and action taken that reduced reoccurrence.

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

Staff had the skills and knowledge to support people and had attended specific training to meet all people’s needs. Additional support was provided in the form of supervisions and appraisals. Staff spoke positively about their induction into the service and the emphasis on shadowing staff to understand people’s routines and needs. People’s nutritional needs were met and they were given choice and control over what they wanted to eat and drink. People’s health and social wellbeing was promoted through regular input from professionals.

Feedback from people, their relatives and professionals was that staff were kind and genuinely cared for them. People's dignity, independence and privacy was promoted at all times. Staff knew people, their preferences and support needs well. People had their own key-worker, a named member of staff who had a central role in their lives and would oversee their support needs and care plans.

People, their relative’s and health professionals considered staff to be responsive to people's needs. People experienced support to help them manage their anxieties, and this had a positive impact on their lives. People felt their views were listened to by staff. Staff were knowledgeable of people’s individual communication needs and ensured that these were always met in a person-centred way. People were supported to understand death and bereavement, and specialist professional support was sought when people needed it.

People, their relatives, staff and professionals spoke highly of the management team. Audits were completed regularly by the registered manager and deputy manager to ensure that documentation was factual and up to date. We were told the new provider had brought positive changes and that this made staff feel valued by the company. Staff worked together as a team, with the view that being open and transparent would achieve positive outcomes for people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.