Argyll House

We found the following examples of good practice.

The premises were kept in a clean and hygienic condition throughout. We reviewed cleaning schedules. These showed areas which could pose a higher risk of cross-infection, such as surfaces and door handles, were sanitised three times each day. Audits took place to monitor infection prevention and control across the service.

There was clear signage for staff and visitors. Anyone entering the home had their temperature taken and were asked questions about their health to identify signs of infection. Staff used a room close to the entrance for hand hygiene and putting on personal protective equipment (PPE) before having contact with people who use the service.

We observed staff wearing appropriate PPE. Staff had received training on infection prevention and control and the registered manager carried out regular checks to ensure staff adhered to correct guidance. PPE stock levels were monitored on a daily basis. Some people using the service were unable to understand social distancing guidelines. We observed staff in communal areas wearing gloves and masks where they had close contact with people using the service.

The home was registered to regularly test staff and people using the service for COVID-19 infection. The service had a good supply of testing kits and all test results had been negative. The registered manager had accessed antibody tests for staff which can indicate if a person has already had a COVID-19 infection. This testing was ongoing at the time of our visit.

Some people using the service could not consent to COVID-19 swab testing. Where staff believed a person was unable to give informed consent, the service documented a mental capacity assessment and best interests decision. The documentation we reviewed was detailed and demonstrated how the service had considered the person's rights and protected characteristics when reaching a decision in their best interests.

The service had not received any new admissions from hospital or the community. The service had not experienced any confirmed cases of COVID-19 during the pandemic. We reviewed the service's infection control policy and other documents which showed how staff would support a person with symptoms or a diagnosis of COVID-19. This included enhanced measures for laundry, waste, self-isolation protocols, staff deployment and cleaning.

Local lockdown restrictions had impacted visitor arrangements. At the time of our inspection, the local lockdown had recently ended. The service was reviewing how each person would be best supported to maintain contact with family members. Staff supported one person to see family at a garden visit. The registered manager was in contact with another family to plan a home visit. A risk assessment process was ongoing to agree how infection risks would be mitigated.

The service had worked creatively during the pandemic to ensure people using the service accessed activities they enjoyed and maintained contact with family members. Digital technology was used for video calls. The service had considered how people's preferred activities could be adapted in response to local restrictions. An exercise bike was purchased for people who enjoyed cycling. A sensory garden was created and at the time of our inspection, the conservatory was decorated to host a Halloween party for people using the service.

The five questions we ask about services and what we found