Archived: Evergreen House

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The service had a clear process in place for visitors. Temperatures were taken and health checks were in place on entry. Sanitising hand gel and masks were available.

¿ People were supported to stay in regular contact with their families. The registered manager had regular communication with families and friends explaining the different options for visiting, including use of the garden, virtual visits through the use of technology and socially distanced walks.

¿The registered manager spoke about the infection prevention control processes in place, which they felt had contributed to not having anyone test positive for COVID-19 to date.

¿Staff supported people's emotional wellbeing. Additional activities had been planned within the home during lockdown to positively support people through the period.

¿Infection control audits and checks were carried out. The manager spoke positively about the dedication

which staff had shown, which had helped to minimise the impact of the pandemic on people's health and

wellbeing.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Evergreen 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. Evergreen House provides accommodation for up to six people with learning disabilities. The home is not registered to provide nursing care. At the time of the inspection there were six people living there.

The care service has 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 using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service had a manager who was in the process of becoming registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People knew the management team and relatives told us the service was well run. There was a quality assurance process to help maintain and improve the service provided. People were regularly out in the community and the management team engaged with external agencies to help drive improvement.

People felt safe and staff knew how to respond to abuse. Risks were assessed and mitigated. However, staff training in regard to fire safety needed to be developed. This was carried out following the inspection. Medicines were managed safely and infection control was promoted.

People were supported by enough staff but recruitment processes needed to be more robust. Staff had opportunities for training and received supervision.

People managed their own nutrition with support from staff and the service worked in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. People had access to health and social care professionals when needed.

People were treated with dignity, respect and kindness. The staff treated the service as it was people’s home. People were involved in planning and deciding their care and staff knew them well.

People received care that met their needs and support plans enabled the staff to support people appropriately. People enjoyed a range of activities that suited their hobbies, preferences and interests while promoting independence. There was a complaint’s process that people and relatives knew how to use.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. They were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. People's needs had been assessed, and risk assessments described how any identified risks to people were minimised. The recruitment practice was safe and thorough and the provider took action to ensure staff competence.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and care plans were in place. They were happy with the care provided and their needs had been met. Staff had received training to support people with various care needs. Some of the people had complex needs that meant they were not able to understand their care plans and we saw that the Person Centred Planning (PCP) had been written in a 'easy read' format to enable people to understand their planned care and support. The service supported people to have adequate and nutritious food and drink, to ensure that they maintained good health.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with the staff, that they had a good understanding of the needs of the people they supported. People told us the staff were caring. One person said, "I love all the staff and they mean the world to me."

Is the service responsive to people's needs?

We observed that staff responded promptly to people's needs. We saw that care plans had been updated when people's needs had changed, and that referrals had been made to other health and social care professionals when required. The service took account of individual preferences, and people were supported to access a variety of activities of their choice.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a registered manager in post. We saw that the provider had effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service they provided. They regularly sought the views of people using the service and their representatives, and took account of these to improve the service.

The service provided a friendly, homely environment which was spacious and decorated to support people with a sensory impairment. We observed people being relaxed and enjoying the company of staff.

Due to the learning disabilities and communication difficulties of the two people we spoke with, they were not able to fully tell us about their experiences. However, one person was able to communicate with us that they felt cared for and said ' it's good.' We also observed them expressing their feelings through facial expressions, body language, and communication methods appropriate for them. Both people looked well cared for.

We reviewed the safeguarding processes in place and also the support systems for staff. We saw evidence that staff were supported and had been appropriately trained to carry out their roles in providing care for people.

We also looked at the complaints records and saw that no complaint had been received since the service had opened in August 2012.