Archived: White Lodge

We spent time speaking with people who lived at White Lodge as well as speaking with staff. We reviewed records and spent time observing people in the home. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report. We used the evidence to answer five questions.

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment at the home had been well maintained and serviced regularly. There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people who lived there. We spent time observing people and noticed that they were cared for safely. Every member of staff we spoke with said that they were happy with staffing levels and said that these helped to provide safe and appropriate care.

Staff records demonstrated that mandatory training was up to date and that staff were trained to meet the complex needs of people. Staff were trained in the safe storage and administration of medicines, moving and handling and complex nutritional needs.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

During our visit we spent time observing people relaxing and spent time with people during their lunch. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of people's care and support needs and that they knew them well. For example, we noted that staff were able to tailor the way they spoke to each person, particularly their sense of humour and speech, to be able to make each person feel listened to and important.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living at the home and told us that they were able to put their training into practice.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people, especially when they needed help moving around and to eat. Staff took into account the complex needs of people when planning activities so that they could take part in these safely. Staff told us that they worked hard to make sure their training was applied to the individual needs of people so that they could be supported to take part in activities important to them.

We found that the provider had used agency staff to maintain safe and effective staffing levels. Agency staff said that they were very happy with the level of professional support they received from the registered manager as well as the standard of training.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home and these were checked by regular reviews, in which they were involved. People's needs assessments included an assessment of their capacity to make decisions as well as consideration of their dietary and nutrition requirements.

People's preferences and interests were acted on by staff who used monthly meetings with key workers to support people to meet their needs and goals. People had access to activities that were designed to stimulate them and they were able to influence the running of the home.

Is the service well led?

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. Staff told us that they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and that management support helped them to do their job effectively. Two new staff spent time talking with us and told us how supported they had felt when they joined the service.

We found that the registered manager was in charge of two services and that a designated senior member of staff was always in place when the manager was off site.

We observed care and found that staff responded to people's individual needs and cared for people in a kind and respectful way. We also observed that people who use the service were well presented and happy and that there were good staff interactions.

We found that people's needs were being assessed, planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. There was an accurate record of people's needs in relation to their care and treatment.

We found there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

The provider did not have suitable arrangements in place to protect people who use the service against the risk of misappropriation of money.

The provider had a system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

We were supported in this inspection by an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. We asked the expert by experience to spend time with the people using the service to find out their views about what it was like to live there.

The expert by experience told us that they very impressed by the person in charge of White Lodge; they seemed a good, kind and genuine person however he/she thought that this person was being overwhelmed by the tasks he had been given by his own managers, especially when set against staff resources that had been made available for him.

We found that people who were using the service were receiving the care and support they needed.

We found that people who were using the service were not provided appropriate opportunities, encouragement and support in relation to promoting community involvement.

We found provider did not have records to demonstrate that there was an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

During the inspection, the staff members on duty were observed speaking to people in a kind and respectful way.