Stockmoor Lodge

We found the following examples of good practice.

The provider had a visiting policy in place, in line with current guidance. This had been amended as and when required. Due to COVID-19 outbreaks at the service additional measures were in place and signs were displayed in the main entrance. The service was being guided by the Health Security Agency. We spoke with one relative regarding the visiting arrangements. They were able to visit their family member because they had a door that opened out on to the central courtyard. Essential care givers were able to visit their loved one and confirmed that they were kept informed of the visiting policy.

Procedures were in place for staff and any essential visitors, on entry to the service to minimise the risks of infection transmission. This included wearing of personal protective equipment (PPE), checking vaccinations status and a lateral flow testing result.

Regular COVID19 testing was carried out for people, staff and essential care givers. The registered manager had clear system and processes in place.

The service had appropriate donning and doffing areas and staff wore PPE in line with guidance. The service had a plentiful supply of PPE and testing equipment. Hand sanitising gel units were located at the entrance to each unit and staff were observed using these as they moved from one area to another.

Staff received infection prevention and control training as part of the providers mandatory training but had also received specific COVID 19 training. The training included the correct use of PPE and handwashing. The management team monitored compliance with wearing PPE. Staff were provided with regular updates by the registered manager.

Whilst a large home, people were cared for in six 15-bedded units. The accommodation was spacious which enabled social distancing to be maintained within communal areas. Some communal areas had been taken out of action (the activities room). One visitor’s pod was available by the main entrance.

The service had a number of staff vacancies but had remained well staffed throughout the pandemic. Staff picked up extra shifts and members of the management team also covered shifts. When agency staff were required, the same staff were supplied.

The service had a comprehensive risk assessment in place and had developed plans to reduce risks. Staff understood the measures in place and had received suitable training. Contingency plans were in place to manage any infections or outbreaks.

People were not admitted to the service unless they tested negative for Covid-19; there were procedures in place to isolate new admissions for a further two weeks to ensure they were free of the virus.

The service was separated into six units, each unit could be isolated using a zoning system. Wherever possible staff worked on one specific unit. During a suspected outbreak, where three people were asymptomatic, only specific staff worked on those units and did not work on other units.

The registered manager facilitated regular testing was for both staff and people living at the service. Senior members of staff at the service carried out regular hand washing audits and checked staff were following the correct infection control procedures. Staff we spoke with were confident and knowledgeable about how to protect people from the risk of infection.

There were effective systems in place to support visits. The registered manager had introduced a one-way system to access specific areas. All visitors to the service were required to sign in, have their temperatures taken and wash their hands. Visitors were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) and their movements around the service restricted to a minimum. People were supported to safely visit loved ones in their bedrooms as they approached the end of their lives.

During the summer people had been able to experience performances by musicians and entertainers. They had been able to sit on the balcony whilst the performances took place on the other side of the fence.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This was the first inspection since the service registered in March 2017. No concerns were identified during the registration process.

Stockmoor Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Stockmoor Lodge is registered to provide personal care and accommodation to up to 90 frail older people, or people living with Dementia. Accommodation is provided in a purpose built new building. The building is divided into six units for fifteen people. This meant people could still experience a homely approach to care and support enabling them to build relationships within their community.

At the time of the inspection 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People received care that was responsive to their needs and personalised to their wishes because regular staff knew their likes, dislikes and needs. However, there was a risk that staff who were new or did not work with the people on a regular basis would not have the information they required to be responsive to people’s needs. Staff records in care plans were recorded inconsistently. We saw care plans did not contain all the information required and that some of this information was later recorded in a risk assessment. This meant there was a potential for staff not to know which area to find the information. People were able to make choices about all aspects of their day to day lives.

An activities programme was displayed within the home and people were informed of the activities available to them. However as the home occupancy had grown faster than expected the activities staff were not able to ensure all people who choose not to go to group activities would have access to other choices as they concentrated mainly on the groups. Activities staff explained that they did try to ensure one to one activities were carried out but also relied on care staff to support people on their units.

People told us they felt safe living in the home. One person said, “Yes I feel very safe”, a relative told us, “[The person] is safe here I don’t have to worry when I go home I know they will be alright.”

There was sufficient staff to safely meet the needs of people living in the home. However there were times when personal care was being carried out requiring two staff that other people living in the home needed to wait. The registered manager said staff could be used from another unit if this occurred. There was an on-going recruitment programme and the registered manager explained how they had made arrangements with the agency they used to ensure they only had regular agency staff who knew the home and the care needs of the people living there.

There were systems and processes in place to minimise risks to people. These included a robust recruitment process and making sure staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. All staff spoken with were confident action would be taken by the registered manager and provider to address any issues they may raise. They also knew they could go to external organisations to raise any concerns.

Medicines were managed safely, securely stored, correctly recorded and only administered by on duty nurses and team leaders that were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines.

To ensure the environment for people was kept safe specialist contractors were commissioned to carry out health and safety checks within the home.

Risks to people in emergency situations were reduced because, a fire risk assessment was in place which was reviewed annually. Personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEP’s) had been prepared: these detailed what room the person lived in and the support the person would require in the event of a fire.

People received effective care from staff who understood their needs. Staff were able to tell us about people’s specific likes and dislikes. People told us they thought staff were well trained and understood them well. The registered manager and staff were very pro-active in arranging for people to see health care professionals according to their individual needs.

People told us staff supported them to remain as independent as possible and only acted after they had sought consent. One person told us, “It is all about me, if I say it is ok then they can go ahead.”

People and relatives told us that the food was good. We reviewed the menu which showed that people were offered a variety of healthy meals. We saw that food and mealtimes were discussed and recorded at resident meetings.

All staff attended induction training before they started to work in the home. All staff said they had plenty of opportunities for training and the organisation also promoted dementia awareness training for all their staff.

People said they received care and support from caring and kind staff. Comments included, “The staff are very caring.” And “They are all very nice and respectful.”

People told us they could talk with staff and the registered manager if they wished to raise a concern. One person said, “The manager is about every day I can talk to them if I need to”. A relative said the manager’s door was always open and they could pop in for a chat if necessary.

People were supported at the end of their life to have a comfortable pain free death. Care plans showed people’s advance decisions were taken into consideration and acted upon.

There were formal and informal quality assurance systems in place to monitor care and plan on-going improvements. There were audits and checks in place to monitor safety and quality of care.

The registered manager had a clear understanding of the management of the home and how to lead staff by example. They had high standards that they aspired to and progress in developing the new home could be seen. They and the provider were committed to continuously improving the service. This was apparent when they spoke about future plans for the service in the local community.