We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cross Lane House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Cross Lane House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
People were receiving visits inside the home for two designated visitors. People were also able to have additional visitors in a converted bedroom with a full-length screen. Visitors had a lateral flow test and temperature check before coming into the home and used a separate entrance. The room was cleaned between each visit and visitors wore full personal protective equipment (PPE). People were also supported to keep in touch with their loved ones through phone and video calls.
The registered manager had tried to encourage social distancing in communal areas by moving chairs, however, most of these chairs had been moved back by people living at the home. Aesthetic items and ornaments had been temporarily removed in order to minimise the risk of lots of people touching these items before they could be cleaned.
The registered manager had clear plans in place for how to support people safely in the event of an outbreak of COVID-19. Staff had supported people to isolate in their bedrooms who had returned to the home from hospital. One person had tested positive on admission to the home. This person had been barrier nursed by staff and staff were able to isolate and contain the infection.
Staff were wearing personal protective equipment in line with government guidance and the registered manager had kept staff up to date with the changes in recommendations that had occurred throughout the pandemic. The home had adequate supplies of PPE and staff had received training in how to safely put on and take off PPE.
The home was clean and tidy and all staff were responsible for cleaning frequently touched surfaces such as the lift buttons and door handles. Staff worked exclusively at the home and did not work in other healthcare settings. The registered manager had plans for covering the staff team in the event of an outbreak affecting staffing levels.
Cross Lane House is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 18 older people and those living with dementia. At the time of the inspection on 23 July 2019, there were 13 people living at the care home in one adapted building.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were receiving safe care and treatment and were protected from abuse. Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe and risks were identified and managed. One person told us they felt safe because the staff knew them well and understood their needs. There were enough staff to care for people safely and the recruitment process was robust. People were receiving their medicines safely and effective infection prevention and control procedures were in place. Incidents and accidents were monitored to ensure lessons were learned when things went wrong.
People had confidence in the staff, one person said, “They all know what they are doing, they are helpful and knowledgeable.” Staff had received relevant training and were supported in their roles. People’s needs had been assessed and care plans guided staff in how to provide safe and personalised care. 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 were supported to have enough to eat and drink and staff were proactive in supporting them to access the health services they needed.
People told us staff were kind and caring. One person said, “ I am very happy here, all the staff are kind.” People were treated with respect and their dignity and privacy was protected. Staff supported people to express their views and involved them in making decisions about their care. People’s relatives described effective communication with staff and said they were always made welcome at the home.
Staff knew people well and understood their needs and preferences. People were receiving a personalised service and described feeling in control of their care. Staff supported people to remain connected with people who were important to them and to follow their interests. People were supported to plan for care at the end of life. The provider had a complaints system and people and their relatives knew how to raise concerns and were confident that they would be listened to.
Staff and managers had a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities. A person-centred culture at the home was embedded within practice. Staff described a supportive atmosphere where they were able to reflect on practice and learn from mistakes. There were clear management systems to monitor quality and drive improvements. People and staff were involved with developments and described being able to influence changes. Staff had developed effective relationships with other agencies.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection The last rating for this service was good (published 7 January 2017).
At this inspection we found that the service continued to be good.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Cross Lane House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
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.
This inspection was carried out on 30 November 2016 and was unannounced.
There was a manager in post who was 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. People were protected by staff that understood how to recognise and respond to signs of abuse. Risks to people’s wellbeing were assessed and staff knew what action they needed to take to keep people safe. Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to identify how the risks of recurrence could be reduced. The premises were safe, clean and hygienic. People had individual evacuation plans outlining the support and equipment they would need to safely evacuate the building; however some of these needed review to ensure they contained clear information about how to evacuate the first floor without using the lift. We made a recommendation about this. Staff understood how to reduce the risk of infection spreading in the service and they followed safe practice.
There was a sufficient number of staff on duty at all times to meet people’s needs in a safe way. We saw that staff had time to chat with people and support them with social activities in addition to meeting their health and care needs. The registered provider had systems in place to check the suitability of staff before they began working in the service. People and their relatives could be assured that staff were of good character and fit to carry out their duties. Staff had completed training and qualifications relevant to their role. The registered manager monitored staff training needs to ensure that staff were skilled and competent to meet people’s needs.
Staff identified and met people’s health needs. Where people’s needs changed they sought advice from healthcare professionals and reviewed their care plan. Records relating to the care of people using the service were accurate and complete to allow the registered manager to monitor their needs. People had enough to eat and drink and were supported to make choices about their meals. Staff knew about and provided for people’s dietary preferences and restrictions. Medicines were stored, administered, recorded and disposed of safely and correctly. Where people were prescribed medicines to be given ‘as required’ there was no written guidance in place to describe the circumstances in which these should be given. We have made a recommendation about this.
Staff communicated effectively with people and treated them with kindness and respect. People’s right to privacy was maintained. They promoted people’s independence and encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves. Personalised care and support was provided at an appropriate pace for each person so that they did not feel rushed. Staff were responsive to people’s needs and requests. Where people’s assessment documentation recorded that they had particular interests, favourite TV programmes or hobbies this had not always been included in care plan for their social needs to ensure staff knew how to support them to continue with these. We have made a recommendation about this.
Staff sought and obtained people’s consent before they helped them. People’s mental capacity was assessed when necessary about particular decisions. When necessary, meetings were held to make decisions in people’s best interest, following the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. Clear information about the service and how to complain was provided to people and visitors. The registered provider sought feedback from people and used the information to improve the service provided.
There was a system for monitoring the quality and safety of the service to identify any improvements that needed to be made. Staff felt supported in their roles. The registered provider and registered manager ensured the culture of the service was person centred and flexible to meet people’s needs and wishes.