You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 May 2016

The inspection took place on 31 March and 1 April 2016 and was unannounced . Our previous inspection in May 2014, found the service to be meeting the regulations inspected of the Health and Social Care Act (2008).

Lakeside is a family run business. It is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to a maximum of 29 people, most of whom are older people living with conditions associated with ageing. It is not a nursing home and health care needs are met through community health care professionals. There were 28 people resident at the time of the inspection.

The service is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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. There was a registered manager at the home.

The risk from Legionella was not being managed and fire safety was being compromised because doors were wedged open. One complaint allegation, which might have indicated abuse or mistreatment was not handled in line with local authority guidelines, however this was fully investigated by the registered manager. All other risks and quality assurance processes were well managed by the provider and registered manager.

People’s choices were consistently respected by the staff and people were consenting to the care they received. People’s capacity to make decisions was assessed and decisions were made in people’s best interest where appropriate. Staff had checked who had authority to make decisions on people’s behalf if they lacked capacity to provide informed consent.

People’s health care needs were under regular review and they were supported to maintain their health. Health care professionals were positive about the service people received.

People were protected through the arrangements for staff recruitment, training, supervision and support. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs, usually in a timely manner.

People received the support they needed with their medicines, which were safely handled on their behalf.

People’s nutritional needs were met by staff who understood how to provide a healthy, well balanced diet. People enjoyed a wide variety of food and drink and any individual preferences were met where possible.

People’s views were regularly sought through meetings, care plan reviews and survey questionnaires.

There was a programme of daily activities for people, which included regular contact with the local community. Where possible, any individual preferences were met. The home environment was pleasant, fresh and well furnished and promoted a social and comfortable life for people.

People said they could raise any concern or complaint and were confident they would receive a satisfactory response.

Good relationships had been built between people using the service and the staff. Staff provided compassionate care. They were kind, respectful and dedicated to the people in their care. This was led from the top. People and their family members spoke very highly of the service and benefitted from the open approach of the home’s management.

There were two breaches of regulation. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of this report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 18 May 2016

The service was not always safe.

The arrangements for protecting people from abuse and harm had not ensured their safety on one occasion. Not all environmental risks had been identified and acted on.

Recruitment procedures protected people.

Individual risks to people were identified and well managed.

There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s individual care needs.

People were safely supported with their medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 May 2016

The service was effective.

People’s choices were consistently respected and they were consenting to the care they received. Staff understood and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People’s health care needs were understood and met, in collaboration with community health care services.

People’s nutritional needs were met and they received a wide range of appetising meals which met their preferences.

Staff were well trained, supervised and supported.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 May 2016

The service was caring.

The staff team had developed caring and supportive relationships with people at Lakeside.

People’s dignity and privacy were upheld and they were treated with utmost respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 May 2016

The service was responsive.

People were actively encouraged to contribute to day to day life in the home and they engaged in a variety of activities and events of interest to them.

People were involved in the planning or their care, which was under regular review.

There were systems in place to receive suggestions and complaints. People expressed complete confidence that any suggestions or issues would be responded to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 May 2016

The service was well led.

There was a culture of caring. High standards were expected, and led from the top.

The staff were motivated and felt supported.

People’s views were sought at every opportunity and improvements made to accommodate their views.

The quality of the service was under regular review toward continuing improvement.