You are here

Archived: Lakeside Care Home Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 31 March 2016

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 28 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask:

Is the service safe?

Is the service caring?

Is the service effective?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found.

On the day of our inspection there were 28 people using the service. The summary is based on conversations with six people using the service, five staff supporting them, one person’s family and a health care professional. We looked at records, toured the building and observed what happened at the home throughout our visit.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The service was safe because there were robust arrangements for checking and monitoring people's needs were met and the environment was safe. For example, care plans were regularly reviewed, falls audited and servicing and maintenance of the home was well organised.

The service was safe because there were sufficient numbers of qualified and experienced staff at the home. One person told us "There was always somebody I could talk to". A health care professional said "Based on observation, clients’ appearance and actions I would say the home is good".

Is the service caring?

The service was caring because people told us "Care second to none, dignity, respect and love"; "Staff are kind and helpful" and "Very nice really. No complaints." We saw care workers engaged with people, asking their opinion, offering choice and giving people the time they needed.

The service was caring because there was a clear ethos of putting the person first. People's views were sought, the provider and registered manager were available to talk to people and their families and people's views were responded to. A staff member said "If you ask for something they (the providers) buy it".

Is the service effective?

The service was effective because the standard of personal care provided was high and people's health care needs were met. Most people said they were very happy at the home and where this was not the case we found the home had measures for improving that person's situation.

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive because it ensured that changes in people's needs were met with changes in the care provided. For example, staffing levels were reviewed when people went out for the day, the hairdresser visited or if people’s care needs increased.

The service was responsive because advice from appropriate health care professionals was sought in a timely manner so that people's welfare was promoted.

The service was responsive to people’s individual preferences, such as how they wished to spend their day and how they wanted their room to look.

Is the service well led?

The service was well led because the provider and registered manager worked closely together with the same values about older people's care.

The service was well led because it was reviewed through seeking the views of people using the service, their representatives, staff and health care professionals and the information was acted upon. For example, one person said "What I have needed I have had".

Inspection carried out on 11 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We met or spoke to most of the 27 people who used the service. We, spoke to three visitors, talked with the staff on duty and checked the provider's records. One person who used the service said, “Fantastic place” and “Couldn’t want for anything better”.

We saw people’s privacy and dignity being respected at all times. We saw and heard staff speak to people in a way that demonstrated a good understanding of people’s choices and preferences. One person said, “I can have what I want including a cup of tea during the night”.

Staff we spoke with were clear about the actions they would take should they have any concerns about people's welfare.

We looked at care records for four people. We spoke to staff about the care given, looked at records relating to them, met with them and observed staff working with them. We saw that people's care records described their needs and how those needs were met. This meant that people’s care and welfare needs were being met.

We saw that medication was administered by suitably trained staff. People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to administer and record medication.

There were effective systems in place for safeguarding people from abuse and for monitoring the quality of the service. This ensured that people's views were listened to and action taken where required.

Inspection carried out on 29 November 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke to eight of the 29 people who used the service. Their comments included: “Very good”; “The girls are very, very caring and get on with each other”; “Excellent. Couldn’t fault it or the girls or the food”; “It’s always nice and clean” and “The owners are wonderful”.

Care workers and domestic staff were attentive and responsive to people’s needs and treated them with respect. Care was provided at people’s own pace and there was kindness and humour. People were involved in decisions about their care and central to decisions which were made about them. District nurses said that people were cared for very well.

Medicines were handled safely and recruitment of staff ensured that only people safe and suitable to work with vulnerable people had been employed. Records were orderly and clear and contained the information needed to ensure that care and welfare were promoted and confidentiality maintained.

Inspection carried out on 13 January 2012

During a routine inspection

As part of our planned inspection we conducted an unannounced visit to Lakeside Residential Home on 13 January 2012 spending five hours there is total. We spoke to five people who use the service, one person's family, two care workers and ancillary staff, the manager and provider. We also observed the care being provided and looked at the care files of two people who use the service.

Following our visit we spoke to two district nurses who attend the home.

People's comments about the home and staff included: "The staff are very friendly",

"Very positive. Staff are extremely pleasant to mother" and "Food choices for every meal and they would do different if you wanted." We were told "There is nothing to complain about."

Two district nurses told us that they had no concerns about the home and the standard of care provided was high. People looked very well cared for and we found that their needs were being met. The home was warm, fresh, well maintained and very clean. Necessary equipment was provided. Care workers took time with people, working at their own pace.

People were treated with respect and dignity. They were consulted, listened to and supported to live the way they wished. There were a lot of regular activities for people, both in the home and in the local community. People said: "There is lots to do".

Staff were trained and well supervised. They knew how to safeguard people from abuse.

There was a programme of continuing improvement for the home.

The standard of record keeping has the potential to affect people's health and welfare adversely because of some gaps in information and a lack of recorded care planning.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)