Archived: Laneside

Updated 7 December 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was an announced inspection which took place on 8 November 2016. The inspection was undertaken by an adult social care inspector.

We were able to access and review the Provider Information Return (PIR) as the manager sent this to us as part of the inspection. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed other information we held about the service.

During the visit we were able to meet and interact and make observations with all four of the people who were living at the home. We spoke with five of the staff working at Laneside including care staff, the registered manager and a senior manager for the provider.

We looked at the care records for three of the people staying at the home including medication records, two staff recruitment files and other records relevant to the quality monitoring of the service. These included safety and quality audits including feedback from people living at the home.

We undertook general observations and looked round the home, including people’s bedrooms, bathrooms and the dining/lounge areas.

Updated 7 December 2016

Laneside is a small care home accommodating up to four people who require support and personal care. The service specialises in caring for people over the age of 18 who have a learning disability. The home is managed by Community Integrated Care [CIC].

This was an announced inspection which took place on 8 November 2016. We announced our inspection because we wanted to ensure people who lived at the home were available to meet.

The service was last inspected in April 2014 and at that time was found to be meeting standards.

The service had 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.

Because of communication difficulties of the people living at Laneside it was difficult to get any detailed verbal feedback. We did however meet three of the people living there and also met with a visiting relative who was able to give some detailed and informed feedback.

We made observations of the way staff interacted with people living at the home and the feedback from the relative we spoke with was very positive. We were told the care was personalised and the staff knew their relative well and understood their care needs.

We reviewed the way people’s medication was managed. We saw there were systems in place to monitor medication so that people received their medicines safely.

There was enough staff on duty to help ensure people’s care needs were consistently met.

We looked at how staff were recruited and the processes to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. We found recruitment to be well managed and thorough.

The manager was able to evidence a series of quality assurance processes and audits carried out internally and externally by staff and from visiting senior managers for the provider. These were effective in managing the home and were based, were possible, on getting feedback from the people living there or their relatives/supporters.

Care was organised so any risks were assessed and plans put in place to maximise people’s independence whilst help ensure people’s safety.

The staff we spoke with described how they would recognise abuse and the action they would take to ensure actual or potential harm was reported. Training records confirmed staff had undertaken safeguarding training and this was on-going. All of the staff we spoke with were clear about the need to report any concerns they had.

Arrangements were in place for checking the environment to ensure it was safe. For example, health and safety audits were completed where obvious hazards were identified. We found the environment safe and well maintained. We had been informed by the provider that the people living at Laneside had been assessed for a move to a supported living environment and Laneside will be deregistered as a care home in the near future. Both manager we spoke with were aware of the issues surrounding the changes and have kept us (the Commission) informed. Meanwhile the home has been safely maintained.

The people living at Laneside were unable to consent to care and treatment. We found the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed, in that an assessment of the person’s mental capacity was made and decisions made in the person’s best interest. The decision to move to supported living in the future, for example, was well managed with input from social work teams and liaising with family members.

The managers had made appropriate referrals to the local authority applying for authorisations to support all four people deprived of their liberty under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS is part of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and aims to ensure people in care homes and hospitals are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom unless it is in their best interests. We found the applications were completed and were continuing to be monitored by the manager.

Daily living activities were organised in the home and these were appropriate and individualised to the people living at the home. All of the people we met were supported to engage in activity outside of the home on a daily basis.

We saw written care plans were formulated and reviewed on-going. We saw that people or their family members were involved in the care planning and regular reviews were held.

We observed staff interacting with the people they supported. We saw how staff communicated and supported people. Staff were able to explain each individual person’s care needs and how they communicated these needs. The family member we spoke with told us that staff had the skills and approach needed to ensure people were receiving the right care. People were observed to be comfortable and react positively with staff. The family member told us they had been consulted about their relatives care and we saw some examples in care planning documentation which showed evidence of this input.

Care records showed that people’s health care needs were addressed with appropriate referral and liaison with external health care professionals when needed. We saw an example during the inspection as the manager and staff had liaised well with community services to support one person to attend a dental appointment.

We saw people’s dietary requirements were managed with reference to individual needs. We saw one person enjoying their meal when they returned from being out for the day.

When we observed staff interacting with people living in the home they showed a caring nature with appropriate interventions to support people.

We saw a complaints procedure was in place and people’s family members were aware of how they could complain. We saw that a record was made of any complaints and these had been responded to. The last complaint was received in 2014.