Langfield Nursing and Residential Home

At the time of the inspection there were strict rules in place throughout England relating to social restrictions and shielding practices. The ones that applied to the area this home was located were commonly known as 'Tier Three Rules'. This meant the Covid-19 alert level was high and there were tighter restrictions in place affecting the whole community.

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. At the inspection however, and consistent with enhanced restrictions with infection outbreaks, these visits had been restricted and were only allowed in exceptional circumstances. We noted the processes around this were consistent with the rules and were regularly reviewed and adapted to reflect latest guidance and legislation.

We noted the provider and registered manager were developing a visiting area in a suitable location. This would incorporate shielding and isolation processes to ensure visitors and residents were protected. The registered manager said that this would only be used when guidance allowed and the current rules were relaxed.

Visiting rules and process were communicated effectively to people using the service and their relatives. People were also supported in contacting their friends and relatives by the use of social media and video messaging services. This assisted in promoting people's mental wellbeing.

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 registered 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.

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 registered 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. The provider kept abreast of developments and changes and we saw examples of where they had considered new guidance and provided this to management and staff in the home.

The home was clean and hygienic. The service had a designated cleaner. All staff had received Covid-19 related supervision and the registered manager was proactive around ensuring staff had access to appropriate support to manage their wellbeing should it be required.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The five questions we ask about services and what we found