You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 November 2017

Sundial Lodge is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 48 older people. Accommodation is provided in flats which have their own bedroom, lounge and kitchen area. On the first day of the inspection there were 45 people living at the service. On the second day of the inspection there were 44 people living at the service as one person had been admitted to hospital in between the visits.

This inspection took place on 11 and 16 October 2017, both days were unannounced. The service was last inspected in April 2016 when it was rated as Requires Improvement. This was because we found people did not always receive person-centred care, the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had not always been followed and risks to people’s health and safety and medicines were not always well managed. We also found there were not always sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Following the inspection the provider sent us an action plan telling us how they would make improvements. At this inspection in October 2017 we found the improvements had been made.

A registered manager was 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.

Staff received training that helped them meet people’s needs. Training included equality and diversity, food safety, health and safety, moving and transferring and first aid. Where people had specific needs specialist training was arranged such as pressure area care, death and dying and caring for people living with dementia. Staff received regular supervision and appraisals to ensure they remained competent to do their job.

People’s needs were met in a safe and timely way as there were enough staff available. People and staff told us they thought there were enough staff on duty. One person told us if they pressed their call bell staff came quickly “No doubt about that.” People also told us staff had time to chat with them.

The service used a computerised care planning system and staff used hand held devices to obtain and input information about people’s needs. People’s care plans contained details of how their needs were to be met. Staff had good knowledge of the people they supported and delivered care in a respectful and caring manner and all personal care was provided in private. Staff ensured people received care and support that was responsive to their needs. Staff knew people well and were able to describe their preferences. For example, one staff member described how one person liked an alcoholic drink twice a day. Staff told us that many people were independent and their job was to support them to maintain their independence, but be available if needed.

People praised the staff for their attention and comments included “Staff always do whatever you ask them to do”, “Staff are all very pleasant, willing and friendly. Never make you feel you are a problem”, and “Staff are awfully nice, they are very kind to me.”

People could be involved in making decisions about their care if they chose. People told us staff regularly discussed their care with them, to ensure their needs continued to be met. One staff member told us whenever they made recordings on their hand held devices they showed them to the person so they could see what had been written about them. Visitors told us they were kept well informed about their relatives care and one told us this gave them “Peace of mind.” Visitors told us they were made welcome at any time.

There was a regular programme of activities available for people to participate in. Activities on offer included trips out, exercises and games as well as visiting entertainers. People’s spiritual needs were met. People were supported to visit church each Sunday and monthly communion was held at the service

People were supported to maintain a healthy balanced diet. There were choices for each meal and people told us the food was good. People were supported to receive any health care services they may need. There were safe systems in place to manage people's medicines. Medicines were stored securely and administered as prescribed to maintain good health.

People were protected from the risks of abuse as staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Thorough recruitment procedures ensured the risks of employing unsuitable staff were minimised. A senior member of staff told us they felt the registered manager was good at employing the right staff with the right attitude.

Staff ensured people’s human rights were protected as they had a good understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The registered manager was very open and approachable. Staff told us they felt well supported to do a good job. There were systems in place to assess, monitor, and improve the quality and safety of care. A series of audits and checks were undertaken to maintain the quality of care being provided. In order to gather the views of people about the quality of care being provided, questionnaires had been sent out to people, visitors and visiting professionals in February 2017. The results had been collated and made available to people. Comments in the questionnaires had all been positive.

Records were well maintained. They were accurate and complete and recorded the care provided. All records we asked for were kept securely but easily accessible.

The registered manager had notified the Care Quality Commission of all significant events which had occurred in line with their legal responsibilities.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 November 2017

The service was safe.

People’s needs were met in a safe and timely way as there were enough staff available.

There were safe systems in place to manage people's medicines.

People were protected from the risks of abuse as staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.

Thorough recruitment procedures ensured the risks of employing unsuitable staff were minimised.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 November 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received training that helped them meet people’s needs.

People were supported to maintain a healthy balanced diet and contact health care services when needed.

People were asked for their consent before staff provided personal care.

People’s human rights were protected by staff who had a good understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Caring

Good

Updated 4 November 2017

The service was caring.

Staff had good knowledge of the people they supported and delivered care in a respectful and caring manner.

Staff ensured people’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People could be involved in making decisions about their care if they chose.

Visitors were always made welcome at any time.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 November 2017

The service was responsive.

Staff ensured people received care and support that was responsive to their needs.

People’s care plans contained details of how their needs were to be met.

People were confident that if they raised concerns they would be dealt with.

There was a regular programme of activities available for people to participate in.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 November 2017

The service was well led.

The registered manager was very open and approachable.

Records were well maintained.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided at the service.