The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Horsell Lodge

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Kettlewell Hill, Horsell, Woking, Surrey, GU21 4JA (01483) 760706

Provided and run by:
Horsell Lodge Limited

All Inspections

27 March 2017

During a routine inspection

Horsell Lodge provides a care home without nursing for people who may be living with dementia or other associated age related illnesses. The home can accommodate up to 46 people, however at the time of the inspection 30 people were living in the home.

This was an unannounced inspection that took place on 27 March 2017.

The home 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager assisted us with our inspection on the day.

People told us they felt safe living within the home. The provider had robust recruitment processes in place to help ensure that only appropriate staff were employed in the home. Where risks had been identified for people or they had experienced accidents/incidents staff took appropriate action and staff had a good understanding on what to do should they suspect abuse was taking place.

People were cared for by a sufficient number of staff. People’s needs were responded to in line with their care plan and in a prompt manner. Staff demonstrated a caring attitude towards people. One that showed people respect and made them to feel as though they mattered. The relationships between people and staff were relaxed and friendly.

Activities took place within the home and staff were looking at different ways to ensure people’s interests were recognised. People’s care plans were detailed and contained information for staff in order that they could provide people with appropriate care.

People were cared for by staff who felt supported and valued by management. Staff were provided with all the necessary training to allow them to carry out their roles competently and they had regular opportunities to meet with their line manager to discuss their performance.

People’s medicines were managed safely and they received the medicines they required. People were supported to see a healthcare professional should their health needs change. In the event of an emergency people’s care would continue with the least disruption possible.

Staff followed the legal requirements in relation to consent and helped to ensure people made their own choices. Where people had particular preferences staff worked closely with them to ensure these were met. Where people had specific dietary requirements these were recognised by staff.

People told us if they had any concerns they would not hesitate to speak to staff. People were involved in the running of the home as regular meetings were held were they had the opportunity to give their feedback.

The registered manager had good management oversight of the home and the people who lived there. Good quality assurance processes were in place to monitor the quality of care provided.

During our inspection we made some recommendations to the registered provider.

18 November 2014

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection, which took place on the 18 November 2014. Horsell Lodge is a large Victorian and Edwardian property that has been converted into a care home. It is registered for up to 46 older people some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 30 people at the home.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People and their relatives told us that they felt they were safe. All of the staff had received safeguarding adults training, had knowledge of the safeguarding procedures and what to do if they suspected abuse.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and people received care in a timely way. There were complete pre-employment checks for all staff. This included full employment history and reasons why they had left previous employment. This meant as far as possible only suitable staff were employed.

There were processes in place in relation to the correct storage and audit of people’s medicines. All of the medicines were administered and disposed of in a safe way. Where people were receiving covert medicine this was done in their best interest.

People thought the food was good and felt that their needs were catered for. People were encouraged to make their own decisions about the food they wanted. We saw that there was a wide variety of fresh food and drinks available for people. Those people who needed support to eat were given it.

People had access to other health care professionals as and when they required it. The opinions of the health care professionals had been sought in a timely way.

Staff knew about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and there was evidence that all of the staff had received training. Where people were unable to consent and decisions were made about their care ‘best interest’ meetings had been held and recorded.

People thought that the staff were caring and that they were treated with dignity and respect. They also felt that if they needed privacy then this would be given. Staff took the time to communicate with people in a meaningful way and people felt there were enough activities to keep them occupied.

People said that staff understood their care needs. One person said that they were very involved in the care and staff consulted them in every way. Staff responded to people’s needs and understood the emotional needs of people living with dementia. People were not were left for long periods of time without any interaction with staff.

People understood how they could make a complaint and felt comfortable to do so. There was a copy of the complaints procedure for everyone to see in the reception area. All of the complaints were logged and an action plan was written to resolve the complaint where possible.

People, relatives and staff were asked for their opinions and feedback on what they thought of the service. The information gained from this was used to make improvements. For example in relation to better communication.

People and staff thought that the service was well-led by the manager. The manager carried out a system of ongoing assessments to monitor the quality of the service provided.

29 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We visited Horsell Lodge to look at the care and welfare of people who used the service. We spoke with one family member and two people who used the service in depth, and four people informally. We spoke to seven staff members in depth and two informally. We observed the interactions between staff and the people who used the service. We did this for the people who we were unable to verbally communicate.

All the people we spoke with told us they enjoyed living at the home. One person told us 'I would prefer my own home of course but this is a good second place.' Another person told us 'I'm fairly new but I think I'll settle in here it's a really lovely place and nice staff.'

We spoke to staff who confirmed they had procedures in place to gain consent from people.

We found arrangements were in place to ensure people had their nutritional needs met. Menus had recently changed but people told us they enjoyed their food. One person said 'The food is very good here, it's like home cooking.'

The home was clean but we found that some areas required refurbishment for example the toilets and bathrooms. We saw that a refurbishment process had begun.

We saw that the provider had carried out appropriate checks when they employed staff. This ensured staff were of good character and had the experience to do the job.

We were told complaints were taken seriously and would be responded to within the provider's timescales.

7 February 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our visit there were 32 people residing in the home and the vast majority of whom had varying degrees of dementia or mental impairment. The service manager was on annual leave so we were initially greeted by his PA and by the deputy manager. Later on in the day the regional manager arrived.

We looked at how people and their relatives were involved in their care, how they were treated with dignity and respect, and what activities were available to them. We found that people were involved in their care planning and there was a programme of activities to support their community involvement.

We looked the premises and found that these were being well maintained and provided a safe and secure environment for people. We looked at the care of people in the home and found that people and their relatives were generally happy with their care, and that there was an effective care planning process in operation.

We looked at support for staff and found they were receiving proper training, supervision and appraisal, and that there were opportunities for progression within the organisation.

We looked at the assessment and monitoring of the service and found there were effective procedures in place for this.

1 March 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

Some people who used the service told us that they could not remember if they had a care plan. Some told us that they thought they had, but they had attended meetings with their relatives to discuss their care.

During discussions people told us that the home was cleaned every day. They stated that their bedrooms were always cleaned by the cleaner. Some people told us that sometimes there was a smell at the home.

People who used the service told us that they felt very safe living at the service. They told us that members of staff were caring and if they were to feel unsafe they would talk to staff and their relatives. People we spoke to were quite surprised when we asked them this question as they had never felt unsafe at the service. They told us that staff did not mistreat any person.

People who used the service were complimentary about the staff. They told us that there were always enough members of staff on duty and that they could call for assistance at any time. People told us that they did not have to wait for a long time when they used their call alarms. They told us that staff always listened to what they had to say and did as they asked them to. We were told that staff were friendly and kind.