We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cosy Lodge on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Cosy Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent
People's experience of using this service:
People and their relatives were placed at the heart of the service and were involved in choosing their care and support in the way they preferred. People benefitted from caring, dedicated staff who treated people with respect and dignity. The staff team promoted people's dignity and prevented people from becoming socially isolated within the service and in the community. People took part in range of activities which they were involved in choosing and enjoyed.
Not all people living at Cosy Lodge were able to verbally express their views to us, but we observed they looked comfortable and at ease with staff. Their non-verbal language, body language, facial expressions and laughter indicated they were happy. Staff knew people well and were alert to signs of change which may indicate someone was not happy. When people were unwell or needed extra support, they were referred to health care professionals and other external agencies.
People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the procedures in the service supported this practice. People were supported to maintain good health and to meet their nutritional needs. People's medicines were managed safely.
Risks to people’s health, safety and well-being were assessed, and action was taken to remove or reduce the risks. People were safe and protected from avoidable harm because staff knew how to identify and report any concerns relating to the risk of abuse. People indicated they felt safe with the staff.
People received kind, responsive person-centred care from staff who were well trained, motivated and supported by a registered manager who led the staff team to provide the best care they could. People were supported by enough staff who had been recruited safely.
Cosy Lodge was hygienically clean, and staff had received training in infection control practices and personal protective equipment such as gloves and aprons was provided for them. The provider took appropriate actions following any incidents and learning was shared with staff to prevent reoccurrence
Relatives and staff members spoke highly of the registered manager and told us that they were always available and supportive. They said the registered manager was approachable and sorted out any issues they had. Staff knew their roles and were able to tell us about the values and the vision of the service. There were adequate quality assurance measures in place.
People's relatives told us they would be confident to raise any concerns with the registered manager and felt confident that they would be listened to. People were satisfied and happy with the care and support they received.
Rating at last inspection:
At the last inspection the service was rated Good. (Published 29 December 2016)
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Cosy Lodge on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Cosy Lodge is a care home registered to provide accommodation for up to six people who have a learning disability or who are on the autistic spectrum. The home is located on two floors. Each person had their own individual room. The home had a communal lounge, kitchen and dining room where people could spend time together. The home had a large garden that people had been involved in developing including an area to grow rhubarb. At the time of inspection there were six people using the service.
The service had 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.
People and their relatives told us that they felt safe while they received support from staff at Cosy Lodge. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. There were procedures in place to manage incidents and accidents.
Risks to people’s well-being had been assessed. Where risks had been identified control measures were in place.
There was a suitable number of staff to meet people’s needs. Staff had been checked for their suitability before starting work with the provider. Staff received support through an induction and regular supervision. There was training available for staff to update them on safe ways of working and how to meet people’s needs.
The provider had plans to keep people safe during significant events such as a fire. The building was well maintained and kept in a safe condition. Evacuation plans had been written for each person, to help support them safely in the event of an emergency.
People’s medicines were handled safely and were given to them in accordance with their prescriptions. People’s GPs and other healthcare professionals were contacted for advice whenever necessary. Staff had been trained to administer medicines and had been assessed for their competence to do this safely.
People chose their own food and drink and were encouraged to maintain a balanced diet. They had access to healthcare services when required to promote their well-being.
People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff and the registered manager had an understanding of the MCA. We found that appropriate DoLS applications had been made. Staff told us that they sought people’s consent before delivering their support.
People received support from staff who showed kindness and compassion. Their dignity and privacy was protected including staff discussing people in a professional and discreet manner. Staff knew people’s communication preferences and used these to support people effectively.
People were involved in decisions about their support. We saw that people’s records were stored safely.
People were supported to develop skills to maintain their independence. People and their relatives had contributed to the planning and review of their support. People had care plans that focused on them and what they wanted. Staff knew how to support people based on their preferences and how they wanted to be supported. People took part in activities and hobbies that they enjoyed.
People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint. The provider had a complaints policy in place that was available for people and their relatives.
People, their relatives and staff felt the service was well managed. The service was led by a registered manager who understood their responsibilities under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. Staff felt supported by the registered manager.
Systems were in place which assessed and monitored the quality of the service and identified areas for improvement. People and their relatives were asked for feedback about the service that they had received.
The provider wrote to us on 14 January 2014 to tell us about action they were taking to address this matter. At this inspection we found that the registered manager had put systems in place to make sure that any incidents, accidents or unexplained marks to people's bodies were clearly documented by staff. The information was then reviewed by the manager or senior staff so that any necessary action could be taken.
We did not speak to people using the service on this occasion.
People had individual care and support plans that they had been involved in developing and that reflected their current needs.
The service had systems in place to make sure that people were kept safe. However, we found that not all of the systems in place for staff to report and identify possible abuse were being used effectively.
We saw that there were enough staff on duty to give people the support they needed. We saw that people were comfortable with staff and interactions between staff and people were positive and respectful. Staff did not rush people when supporting or speaking with them and respected when people wished to exercise their independence and do things for themselves
The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. These included internal audits and systems for consulting people who used the service.
People told us that they were supported to make decisions in their lives and we saw that the staff treated them with respect. People had been involved in writing their care plan and were encouraged to be as independent as possible. There were meetings for people to talk about their care and have a say in how the service was being run.
People were asked about the social activities they enjoyed and had a plan for meeting their social needs. However, there was not an effective system in place for monitoring the activities that people did to ensure they were doing what they had said they wanted to. People told us about the activities they enjoyed doing and we saw that this reflected what their plans said they should be supported to do. One person said 'I went to the disco last night, I love dancing'. We saw that people were busy doing various activities in the service during our visit.
The staff who supported people were qualified and received the training and support they needed to care for people effectively. There were systems in place for checking the quality of the service and this included asking people that used it for their views. The manager checked the safety of the service and took action quickly when changes needed to be made.