Broadfield House Home for Older People

We found the following examples of good practice:

We noted good practices in all of the areas we considered including the use of and disposal of personal protective equipment (PPE). Staff, management and visitors were using PPE correctly and there were robust procedures in place around the use of PPE.

The provider and registered manager had comprehensive processes to minimise the risk to people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection. These included weekly testing of staff and at least every 28 days for people living in the home. Hand sanitiser and PPE were available throughout the home. There were signs to remind staff, visitors and people about the use of PPE, the importance of washing hands and regular use of hand sanitisers.

Where appropriate, and consistent with infection control rules, 'socially-distanced' visits had been taking place. We noted the processes around this were in line with local rules and guidance. We noted they were regularly reviewed and adapted to reflect latest guidance and legislation.

We noted the provider and manager had developed a visiting area inside the home. We noted this incorporated shielding and isolation processes to ensure visitors and residents were protected.

Visiting rules and process were communicated effectively to people using the service and their relatives.

Infection control policy and people's risk assessments had been completed and revised following the pandemic so that people were protected in the event of becoming unwell or in the event of a COVID-19 outbreak in the home. The manager insisted people were tested before admission and consistent with guidance, people were not being admitted to the home at the time of the inspection. This will be reviewed as appropriate and in line with any changes in restrictions. We were satisfied the service, staff, people and visitors were following the rules.

People's mental wellbeing had been promoted by use of social media and hand held devices so people could contact their relatives and friends. Staff had comprehensive knowledge of good practice guidance and had attended Covid-19 specialist training. There were sufficient staff to provide continuity of support and ensure safeguards were in place should there be a staff shortage.

Areas of the home could be segregated in the event of widespread infection so as to assist with appropriate isolation of people. The manager said separate staff members could be used to help in this situation.

Policies and infection control processes were regularly reviewed when guidance changed. We saw good examples of this that took into account guidance from a wide variety of sources. A provider representative kept abreast of developments and we saw examples of where they had considered new guidance and provided this in a summary to management and staff in the home.

The home was clean and hygienic. The service had designated cleaners. All staff had received Covid-19 related supervision and had access to appropriate support to manage their wellbeing should it be required.

During the inspection, the manager created a policy around the national COVID-19 vaccination programme and a comprehensive risk assessment when staff or residents may decline the offer of a vaccine. Staff and residents were encouraged to participate and were supported appropriately.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The five questions we ask about services and what we found