Sharnbrook House

We found the following examples of good practice.

• The provider had procedures in place for visitors to the service to help prevent the spread of infection. These included proof of a negative lateral flow test (LFT), a temperature check, changing in to fresh personal protective equipment (PPE) and a questionnaire with COVID-19 screening questions.

• Visitors were required to show proof of vaccination against COVID-19 before entering the service.

• Staff were trained how to use PPE appropriately. We observed staff wearing the correct PPE depending on the support they were providing people.

• Changes had been made to the lounges and dining rooms, such as moving furniture around to help promote social distancing.

• Staff followed cleaning checklists, and these were checked by the management team. Staff confirmed that they had the time to keep the service clean. The service looked and smelled fresh during our visit.

• People and the staff team took part in regular testing to help ensure they did not spread COVID-19. Measures were taken if there was a positive case in line with government guidance.

• The provider shared updates and government guidance with staff to help ensure they understood how to help keep people safe.

• People were supported to see friends and family when restrictions allowed. When this was not possible people were supported to stay in touch by video or telephone call.

• Staff supported people to maintain their wellbeing throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. People were supported to engage in social interests or past times according to their preferences.

Sharnbrook House is a care home that offers care and support to 30 older people, some of whom are living with dementia.

People’s experience of using this service

• People were very happy living at Sharnbrook House. They felt safe and liked the staff who looked after them. Relatives were very satisfied with the service the staff gave to their family members and they felt welcomed at the home. Staff were proud to be working at the home and enjoyed their job. Everyone said they would recommend the home.

• Everyone praised the registered manager who was approachable, helpful and provided strong leadership. The staff team enjoyed working together and supported each other and the registered manager. The provider employed enough staff so that they could meet people’s needs in a timely way. Staff went through a thorough recruitment process so that the provider knew they only employed suitable staff.

• The registered manager and staff were proud of their achievements. These included being finalists in the provider’s Care Home of the Year Award and nominations meant that eight staff were awaiting the results of individual awards.

• The provider had systems in place to keep people safe from avoidable harm. Staff knew who to report any concerns to and assessments of potential risk ensured that people were as safe as possible. Staff undertook training in a wide range of topics so they had the knowledge and skills to do their job well and effectively meet people’s needs.

• Staff gave people their prescribed medicines safely. They followed good practice guidelines to help prevent the spread of infection. Equipment was available so that staff could support people in a safe way.

• The kitchen staff cooked a variety of nutritious meals, based on people’s choices and including special diets for those who needed them. External healthcare professionals supported staff to help people maintain or improve their health.

• People made choices in all aspects of their lives, including being involved in decisions about redecoration of the home. Staff knew each person well, including their likes and dislikes and their preferences about how they wanted staff to care for them.

• People spoke about staff very warmly and people and staff got on very well together. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged people to be as independent as possible. People had opportunities to decide on the care they wanted and to review and change the care if it was not meeting their needs. Care records reflected their decisions.

• The staff team were all involved in arranging a wide range of meaningful things for people to do. They organised group and individual activities, outings and entertainments. Staff supported people to take an active part in village life.

• People knew how to complain and were confident that the registered manager would resolve their complaints. The laundry provision was not working as well as people wanted so the registered manager was looking into making alternative arrangements.

• Staff knew they were responsible for giving people a high-quality service based on the provider’s ethos and values. Sharnbrook House was people’s home and staff did everything to make people’s lives as comfortable and fulfilling as possible. A quality monitoring system led to the registered manager identifying improvements.

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

Rating at last inspection

At the last inspection we rated this service Good (report published on 8 August 2016).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

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

Sharnbrook House is registered to provide care for up to 30 people, who may have a range of needs, including old age, physical disabilities and dementia. Nursing care is not provided. During this inspection, 30 people were living at the service.

A registered manager was 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.

People felt safe living at the service. Staff had been trained to recognise signs of potential abuse, and processes were in place to manage identifiable risks to people.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to ensure peoples’ safety and meet their individual needs. The provider also ensured new staff were safe to work at the service by carrying out appropriate recruitment checks.

Systems were in place to ensure people’s daily medicines were managed in a safe way and that they got their medication when they needed it.

Staff had received training to carry out their roles and meet people’s assessed needs.

We found that the service worked to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 key principles, which meant that people’s consent was sought in line with legislation and guidance.

People had enough to eat and drink. Assistance was provided to those who needed help with eating and drinking, in a discreet and helpful manner.

People’s healthcare needs were met. The service had developed positive working relationships with external healthcare professionals to ensure effective arrangements were in place to meet people’s healthcare needs.

Staff were motivated and provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They treated people with kindness and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity at all times.

We saw that people were given opportunities to be actively involved in making decisions about their care and support, and their social needs were provided for.

A complaints procedure had been developed to let people know how to raise concerns about the service if they needed to.

There were effective management and leadership arrangements in place. The service promoted a positive culture that was person centred. Systems were also in place to monitor the quality of the service provided, in order to drive continuous improvement within the service.

This inspection was carried out in response to these concerns.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we had inspected to answer questions we always ask; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used 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?

There were adequate numbers of staff on duty to meet people's needs.

Is the service effective?

On the day of our inspection we found that no agency staff were being used.

Is the service caring?

One person who used the service told us, 'The staff are very good, they come straight away if I call them.'

Is the service responsive?

Recruitment sessions had been held to fill staffing vacancies.

Is the service well led?

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time. The new manager is in the process of obtaining her registration.

Everyone we spoke with was complimentary about the standard of food in the home. One person said, "There is always something I like. I enjoy some meals more than others, but nothing is awful." We observed lunch which was a sociable occasion with most people choosing to eat in the dining room. The meal was served individually to people. We observed people being asked about their preferences for having sauces and gravy added to their meal.

We saw that the staff cared for people in a respectful way and had been recruited appropriately. This ensured the staff providing the care and support were checked and cleared as suitable to do so.

The home, which was originally built in the early 18th century, was clean, tidy and homely. It was free from any odours. One person said 'I love this place and I like to imagine all the people that have lived here in the past.' People had the opportunity to bring small items of furniture into the home with them.

We saw staff interact with and acknowledge people on an individual basis. Clear communication was provided when talking with people about what they were doing and why. We spoke with two relatives of a person with a diagnosis of dementia who said they were very happy with the care provided. They said they were involved in decision making where possible and updated about the care required. We saw care plans were detailed and were signed by the person or their representative.

The provider had put in place a robust system to intended to manage medication safely. We found that medication was administered by staff that had been trained to do so before they undertook any administration.

We saw the interactions between staff and managers were relaxed. Relatives also told us that they liked the atmosphere in the home and it was always friendly and welcoming. Staff told us that they felt supported to carry out their roles.

We observed a complaints policy with leaflets on display. We spoke with two relatives visiting the service and they told us that they found the manager very approachable and would raise any concerns with her in the first instance. We saw that where complaints were made these had been investigated and resolved.