Sahara House

Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient for people's needs. Recruitment checks were also completed before staff started work.

“Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs.” from the report

People were treated as individuals, and inspectors saw positive communication between staff and people. Privacy, dignity and cultural needs were supported.

“We saw that people were treated as individuals and observed positive interaction and communication between people and staff.” from the report

Staff had training in areas including safeguarding, first aid, infection control, the Mental Capacity Act and support for learning disability and mental health.

“The training records showed staff received training in first aid, Mental Capacity Act, food hygiene, infection control, safeguarding, diabetes care and supporting people with mental health, dementia and learning disability.” from the report

People were involved in everyday decisions and were supported to express their views about their care.

“We saw that people were involved in their day-to-day decisions about their care and well-being.” from the report

Medicines records were incomplete in places, some needed protocols were missing, and one person received hidden medicine while lying down, creating a possible choking risk. This placed people at risk of harm.

“We observed that 1 person received their covert dose mixed with custard whilst they were lying down, which could be a potential choking hazard.” from the report

Some risks, including choking and medicine-related risks, were not fully assessed or clearly explained in care plans. The manager made some immediate updates during the inspection.

“We identified that not all choking risk assessments had specific detail, on how to support someone who was at risk of choking that was a wheelchair user.” from the report

The baths and laundry room were not clean. Dust and cobwebs were present, creating a potential infection risk. The manager addressed these concerns immediately, but inspectors still made a recommendation.

“The laundry room was also not clean and had thick dust and cobwebs around doorframes and doors.” from the report

Mental capacity and best-interest records were not consistently completed. The home had CCTV in communal areas without fully following the required decision-making process for everyone.

“The provider did not consistently act in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated code of practice.” from the report

Some care plans did not contain enough individual detail, including guidance for people with epilepsy. Staff also did not always provide care at a time chosen by the person.

“Some people's care plans lacked specific detailed information such as seizure protocols for service users with epilepsy.” from the report

Audits did not consistently identify safety, cleanliness, medicines or care-record problems. This meant the home's systems did not reliably protect people from risk.

“Systems had not been established to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service.” from the report