Archived: Lehmann House

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

Care staff were trained to carry out their duties safely and efficiently. They told us that the training they received in safeguarding vulnerable adults gave them confidence that they would know what action to take if they had any concerns.

People's care plans identified and assessed risks in their daily lives, for example due to poor eyesight. This helped staff to be aware of the care and assistance people needed to keep them safe.

Arrangements were in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies such as fire and arrangements to reduced risks, such as from substances hazardous to health, were regularly audited.

We saw that the provider had carried out the necessary checks to ensure that staff were of good character and had the skills needed to provide safe care and support.

Policies and guidance informed staff of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and we saw that service was provided in accordance with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Is the service effective?

People received the care and support they required to maintain their health and well-being. We saw that people's welfare was protected while their independence and community involvement was supported.

Is the service caring?

People were pleased with the service and felt that they received good care. One person commented that the staff, 'Do their utmost to make it pleasant ' and I think they succeed.'

People's care was planned and delivered in accordance with their needs and preferences. We saw that staff treated people gently and sought their consent before providing care.

Is the service responsive?

We found that the service was responsive to people's wishes. Care plans were agreed with the people who used the service and were reviewed and adjusted in response to any changes in their needs. Feedback was encouraged and acted on.

Is the service well led?

The provider had effective systems in place to check and monitor the quality of the service.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes. Care staff confirmed that they had received appropriate training to be able to carry out their duties. We saw that they delivered the quality of service that was expected in an efficient and caring manner.

All six people told us that they were satisfied with the service provided. One person said, 'I have no complaints. I have never made a complaint and doubt I will. There is no need. There is always someone to speak to if you need to and the staff are pretty good at helping you sort things out.'

People confirmed they were consulted about the care and support that they were provided with and understood the care and treatment choices available to them. One person told us, 'They (staff) know how I like things done. I like things done a certain way and they understand that.'

We looked at five people's care records which provided information for staff on how to meet individual's health and care needs. We saw that people's choices and preferences were reflected in the care records and written in a way that promoted their independence.

The care records showed that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned in line with their individual care plan. We saw evidence in the care records that people received safe and coordinated care, treatment and support where more than one provider was involved.

We spoke with six people about the quality of the food. Feedback was positive. People said the food was appetising and there was a variety. We observed people as they were eating their lunch. Where people required assistance from staff to eat and drink, we observed positive staff interaction.

We saw that the service provided enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. We looked at staff records and spoke with three members of staff who told us they were being appropriately supervised and supported. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the people they supported and on to meet their needs.

We saw that the provider had systems and procedures in place to regularly monitor and assess the quality of the service provided.

During our inspection we observed that the interaction between staff and people using the service was friendly, respectful and professional. We saw that staff sought people's agreement before providing any support or assistance.

During this inspection we found that improvements had been made to the following areas of concern; care plans and staffing levels. Care plans had been updated and regular reviews were in place. The care plans were person centred with information for staff on how to meet individual's health and care needs. People's choices and preferences were reflected in the care records and written in a way that promoted independence.

We saw that the service provided enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. We looked at records and spoke with staff who told us they were being appropriately supervised and supported.

We spoke with seven people who resided in the service to gain their views and experiences. They told us they were happy with their care and treatment and the staff treated them with respect. One person told us, 'I am really happy here, I have made lots of friends and it's a nice place to live.'

People who used the service told us their privacy and dignity was respected and they felt safe with their care workers. Comments made included, 'The staff are very kind,' and, 'Staff are very good.' One person told us, 'The staff are always on hand if you need anything and help me if I need it.'

We asked people if they were not happy about their care or treatment what they would do. People told us they would speak to the staff or the registered manager and were confident their concerns would be addressed. One person told us, 'The manager is lovely, always about if you need something. The staff are really nice too and help me. I don't have any complaints.'

During our inspection we observed that the interaction between staff and people using the service was friendly, respectful and professional.

We spoke to people using the service. One told us, "The staff are really good here." Another told us, "The staff are nice but always really busy."

We looked at the planning and delivery of care. We found that care was not planned and recorded effectively which meant that it may not always meet the person's needs.

We looked at staffing. We found that the number of staff on duty was not planned with regard to people's needs. We also found that the number of staff on duty during five days of the previous month was less than the service had set.