Archived: Aykroyd Lodge

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

This a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

Staff spoken with had a good understanding of the procedures in place to safeguard vulnerable adults and confirmed they had received training on these issues. We found the home had appropriate written policies and procedures along with the relevant contact numbers readily available for staff reference. Staff were also aware of the whistleblowing procedures should they wish to raise any issues of concern about the organisation.

Risk assessments had been carried out to gather information about risks to people's health, welfare and safety. Plans to manage risks were included in each section of people's support plans to enable people to take responsible risks as part of their daily lifestyle.

The home had appropriate policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. (The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards provide a legal framework to protect people who need to be deprived of their liberty for their own safety). Although there had been no applications made since our last inspection, some staff including the manager had been trained to understand when an application should be made. Staff spoken with had participated and were aware of best interest meetings, which were held in circumstances where a person using the service lacked capacity to make their own decisions. The decisions and actions agreed in the meetings were detailed in the person's support plan.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for managing and recording people's medication.

Is it effective?

People using the service had complex needs, which meant they were not able to tell us about their experiences in the home. We therefore carried out an observation of people's care using the short observational framework for inspection. This allowed us to assess the care provided in the home. Our results showed there was a good level of positive interaction between the staff and the people using the service. We also found staff had a good understanding and knowledge of people's care and support needs. According to records seen staff had received training to meet the needs of people.

Is it caring?

Our observations demonstrated staff were kind and sensitive to people's needs. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People were asked to make choices about activities and what they had to eat and drink. Staff spoken with were able to describe how they encouraged people to make their own decisions about aspects of their daily life.

People's care was set out in detailed support plans to provide staff with guidance about how to meet their needs. People had a separate file for healthcare needs to enable staff to carefully monitor their health and routine appointments.

Is it responsive?

People had a schedule of varied activities both inside and outside the home and were supported to maintain relationships with their family.

All people had lived in the home for a number of years. However, there was a detailed assessment process in place for any new referrals which included visits to the home and transition plans.

People were allocated a key worker to coordinate their care. All staff spoken with were clear about their responsibilities as a key worker and meetings were held on a regular basis to ensure the care provided met people's needs.

Is it well led?

The service had a robust system to check and monitor the quality of care the service provided. We saw detailed checks were made on all aspects of the operation of the home and action plans had been devised to address any shortfalls.

Staff told us they were aware of their roles and responsibilities and confirmed they were provided with ongoing training to support them in their work. Staff also told us they were invited to attend staff meetings and received regular supervision. This meant the staff had the opportunity to discuss the operation of the home and identify any future training needs.

Wherever appropriate, staff worked closely with other health and social care professionals in order to provide people with well-coordinated care.

People's care was planned and delivered in accordance with their needs. People had detailed individual care plans which were supported by a series of risk assessments. Staff on duty explained they observed people's behaviour and were familiar with people's methods of communication in order to monitor their wellbeing and respect their choices.

We noted suitable arrangements were in place to handle and manage medication.

Staff were provided with appropriate training opportunities and received regular supervision.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service, which include the use of audits and customer satisfaction questionnaires.

On this inspection we found improvements had been made and the service was compliant with this outcome. On a tour of the premises we observed the level of cleanliness had improved in all areas. A member of staff had been designated as infection control lead and new cleaning schedules and records had been implemented to cover the whole home. We saw examples of completed cleaning records during the inspection. The management team also carried out regular visual checks and weekly audits to ensure the appropriate standard of cleanliness was maintained.