Archived: Shaftesbury Talbot Manor

We found the following examples of good practice.

People had been supported to understand COVID-19, social distancing, national restrictions and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Staff had explained what the virus was and how to keep safe, they had produced easy read documents on various topics and people had also watched videos to learn about keeping safe.

There were thorough measures in place for family and professional visits to the service. These included risk assessments, pre and on the day screening, the supply of PPE and detailed guidance. Family visits took place in a dedicated area accessed externally. Visitors undertook lateral flow tests, which are rapid COVID-19 tests and give a result within 30 minutes. Time was allowed for deep cleaning between visits.

The provider understood the importance of helping people to maintain their mental wellbeing. Most people had electronic devices and used these to maintain their relationships with family and friends. The provider had employed additional activities staff to ensure people maintained their interests and developed their skills. The provider had also organised a range of online activities including exercise classes, religious services and themed activity resources.

Staff were provided with resources to maintain their mental wellbeing and also received regular check-ins, organisational newsletters, virtual team meetings and supervision. The manager told us they felt very well supported by the provider.

The home regularly tested people and staff in line with the government’s testing programme. Risk assessments had been carried out to identify and mitigate the risks to people and staff assessed as at higher risk.

The provider had ensured all staff had received training in putting on and taking off PPE, COVID-19 and infection prevention and control. Staff had a plentiful supply of PPE and were observed wearing this appropriately during the inspection.

The home was visibly clean, free from clutter and robust cleaning schedules were in place. Infection prevention and control audits were carried out regularly and action taken where necessary.

The location also includes Shaftesbury Court. This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own specialist housing. At the time of our inspection, 14 younger adults were receiving support with personal care in their own flats at the time of our inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 registered manager led both the services.

Where our evidence about people’s experience was different in the different settings we have made this clear in the report.

The people living in Talbot Manor had mostly lived there for many years. The home had been established before the introduction of Registering the Right Support and had not been developed and designed in line with the values of inclusion that underpin this and other best practice guidance. However, the people living there were settled and happy with the support they received.

Although actions had been taken to promote independence and choice in line with the guidance there was no formal plan regarding how the provider would ensure the service reflected the values of Registering the Right Support in the future. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.

Staff cared about the well-being of people they supported. We received positive feedback from people about the kindness of staff.

People were supported by safely recruited staff and there were enough trained and experienced staff to support people.

Staff understood how to identify and report abuse and were supported in their roles by senior staff and colleagues. Staff received training to enable them to carry out their roles competently.

People were supported to make choices about how they spent their days. Staff had a good knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and promoted independence and choice.

People’s health care needs were met and people were supported to see healthcare professionals when appropriate. People were supported to take their regular prescribed medicines safely by staff who had received the appropriate levels of training. At Talbot Manor, protocols for some medicines that were taken when needed were not being followed. The registered manager assured us that this would be addressed and took immediate action to ensure monitoring and reporting supported safe medicine administration.

People were supported to develop and maintain their interests within the home and the local area.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint if they needed to and felt any concerns would be taken seriously and action taken straight away. Some people at Talbot Manor had not raised frustrations about their housemates with staff. We discussed this with the registered manager.

There were quality assurance systems in place to drive improvement and ensure a safe, effective, caring and responsive service.

Talbot Manor 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 the time of the inspection the registered manager was not available and we were supported by the deputy manager.

People told us they liked living at the home and never got bored. One person said, “It’s very lively, we all get on”. We asked another person about living at Talbot Manor and they said, “I am happy”. A member of staff told us Talbot Manor was, “Very homely”.

There were effective systems in place to make sure people received safe care and support. Staff had a good understanding of the risks of abuse, medicines were managed safely and recruitment was robust.

People received effective care because staff had received the right training and support and knew people well including their likes and preferences.

Staff had an outstanding caring philosophy that reflected the organisational values. Staff went ‘the extra mile’ to make sure people were valued and empowered to lead full and happy lives.

People told us staff responded to their needs promptly. People’s records provided staff with detailed and accurate guidance on how people wanted or needed to be supported.

The service was well led. The management team received very positive feedback from people, staff and other organisations they worked in partnership with. There were systems in place to check people received safe, effective, caring and responsive support.

People were being cared for by appropriately qualified and experienced staff who ensured that people's consent was obtained prior to administering care. The provider had effective systems in place to seek the views of people who used the service, and their relatives, and act on them where appropriate.

We spoke with three people who lived at the home on the day of our visit. One person told us "I love it here" and another said "all the staff I've met are lovely". We telephoned and spoke with two people who received care from the agency, after the provider had gained their permission for us to telephone them. Both people told us they were very happy with their care and support. We spoke with one relative who told us the "care is absolutely great". The two members of staff we spoke with knew the people they cared for well and were supported by the provider to gain the skills and knowledge needed to care for them more effectively.

We spoke with two people about their experiences of care. Some people were not able to talk with us, so we also observed their care. We reviewed records and spoke with the manager and four staff.

The provider respected people's privacy, dignity and independence, and took their views and experiences into account in providing care. People said staff 'listen to you' and that they were encouraged to give their views.

People were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. Their needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with individual care plans. One person described the staff as 'very good carers'.

People using the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises. The provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff told us they were well supported. They received regular training.

The provider had an effective system to assess and monitor the quality of service people received, and to identify, assess and manage risks to people's health, safety and welfare.