You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 29 July 2017

The inspection took place on the 20 June, 2017 and was unannounced. The last comprehensive inspection took place in February 2015, when the provider was meeting the regulations. You can read the report from our last inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Walton Lodge’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Walton Lodge is a care home for adults aged between 18 - 65 years old that have severe learning disabilities and autism. The home consists of a converted large bungalow which accommodates 14 people and a separate building which accommodates six people who are working to develop their independent living skills. There is also a secure garden area. The home is located on the outskirts of Doncaster with access to public transport links.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. 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.

The provider did not have safe arrangements in place for managing medicines. We found the stock of medicines did not always tally with the records. It was difficult to see if medicine had been given as prescribed. The provider had no protocols in place for people who required medicines on an ‘as and when’ required basis.

The provider had a safeguarding procedure in place to protect people from abuse. Staff received training in this subject and this was repeated on an annual basis.

We found the registered provider employed enough staff to meet people’s needs. We observed staff interacting with people and found they were supported in a timely way.

Risks associated with people’s care had been identified and appropriate plans were in place to help minimise the risks from occurring.

The registered provider had a safe system in place for recruiting new staff. Staff received an induction when they commenced employment with the registered provider.

Training records and discussions with staff demonstrated that they possessed the right skills, knowledge and experience to meet people’s needs. Staff confirmed they received supervision sessions with their line manager. Supervision sessions were one to one meetings to discuss their role. However, staff did not receive an annual appraisal of their performance.

We looked at the support plans for three people who used the service and there was evidence that people were consulted about how they wanted to receive their care. However the service had Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in communal areas and we were unable to access documents relating to people’s consent for this to be used.

We looked at care records and found people were able to access health care professionals in a timely way when required.

People were involved in meal preparation and took part in shopping for food they liked. We saw people were involved in preparing a weekly shopping list and buying food which was in keeping with their preferences.

We observed staff interacting with people and we found they knew people well and were caring and supportive. Staff found ways to communicate with people to assist them to be involved in conversations.

Care plans we looked at were informative and reflected people’s current needs. Staff knew people well and understood their needs and preferences.

People were involved in social activities and were able to choose what they wanted to do. Each person had an activity plan for the week and staff supported people to keep to it.

The service had a complaints procedure and this was displayed in the home. An easy to read version was also available.

The registered provider had an audit system in place but this did not always identify areas of concern. We identified some areas of development as part of this inspection which had not been addressed by the registered provider.

The registered provider had no formal system in place to capture the views and opinions of people who used the service and their relatives. Relatives and residents meetings were not provided, however people and relatives we spoke with were complimentary about the management team and happy with the service provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 29 July 2017

The service was not always safe.

The registered provider did not have safe arrangements in place for managing medicines.

The registered provider had a safeguarding procedure in place to protect people from abuse.

We found the registered provider employed enough staff to meet people’s needs.

Risk assessments were in place and identified ways to minimise risks associated with people’s care.

The registered provider had a safe system in place for recruiting new staff.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 29 July 2017

The service was not always effective.

Staff received training and support to complete their role. However, they did not have the opportunity to discuss their performance at an annual appraisal.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act. However, the registered provider had CCTV in communal areas of the home, but could not evidence that they had sought consent from people to use this.

People were supported to maintain a healthy and nutritious diet. However, information regarding allergens in foods was limited.

People had access to health care professionals when required and advice they gave was included in people’s care plans.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 July 2017

The service was caring.

We observed staff interacting with people and we found they knew people well and were caring and supportive.

Staff communicated well with people and assisted them to be involved in conversations.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 July 2017

The service was responsive.

We looked at people’s care records and found they reflected their current needs.

People were involved in activities in the community and in the service.

There was a complaints procedure and people felt able to speak with staff if they had a concern.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 29 July 2017

The service was not always well led

The registered provider had an audit system in place but this did not always identify areas of concern.

The registered provider had no formal system in place to capture the views and opinions of people who used the service and their relatives.

People who used the service and staff we spoke with felt the service was well managed.