You are here

Lavender Court Residential Home Good

We are carrying out checks at Lavender Court Residential Home using our new way of inspecting services. We will publish a report when our check is complete.


Inspection carried out on 26 March 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 26 March 2015 and was unannounced. We previously visited the service on 28 October 2013 and found that the registered provider met the regulations that we assessed.

The service is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for 18 older people who may have a memory impairment. The home is located in Nafferton, a village that is close to the town of Driffield, in the East Riding of Yorkshire. It is close to village amenities. Bedrooms are mostly single and some bedrooms have en-suite facilities.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC); they had been registered since 23 April 2013. 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 told us that they felt safe living at the home. Staff had completed training on safeguarding adults from abuse and were able to describe to us the action they would take if they had concerns about someone’s safety. They said that they were confident all staff would recognise and report any incidents or allegations of abuse.

We observed good interactions between people who lived at the home, staff and relatives on the day of the inspection. People told us that staff were caring and compassionate and went “Over and above.”

People were supported to make their own decisions and when they were not able to do so, meetings were held to ensure that decisions were made in the person’s best interests. If it was considered that people were being deprived of their liberty, the correct documentation was in place to confirm this had been authorised.

Medicines were administered safely by staff and the arrangements for ordering, storage and recording were robust.

We saw that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet the needs of people who lived at the home. New staff had been employed following the home’s recruitment and selection policies to ensure that only people considered suitable to work with vulnerable people had been employed. Staff received a thorough induction programme before they worked unsupervised.

People who used the service and relatives told us that staff were effective and skilled. Staff told us that they were happy with the training provided for them, and that they could request additional training if they felt they needed it.

People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and people told us that they were satisfied with the meals provided by the home. People were supported appropriately by staff to eat and drink safely and their special diets were catered for. The home had received an Nutrition Mission award.

There were systems in place to seek feedback from people who lived at the home, relatives, health and social care professionals and staff. People’s comments and complaints were responded to appropriately and people felt that this had led to improvements being made to the service they received.

People who lived at the home, relatives and staff told us that the home was well managed and one relative described the home as “Progressive.” The quality audits undertaken by the registered manager were designed to identify any areas of concern or areas that were unsafe, and there were systems in place to ensure that lessons were learned from any issues identified, and to promote continuous improvement.

Inspection carried out on 28 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with nine people that used the service, two staff, the deputy manager and two relatives about the service provided at Lavender Court.

We looked at four peoples' case files and observed interactions between people and staff. We found that people and their relatives were involved in the planning and giving of care and that people received the care that met their needs well.

People were satisfied with the care they received. They said, "It's alright living here", "We have to be here to be looked after", "The staff do the very best they can for us, they are alright", "I am quite satisfied sitting here with my music", "I am looked after very well, the staff are courteous and helpful", "I am very happy here, the food is excellent" and "It is quite nice here, the food is very good".

We found that people were well protected from the risk of harm or abuse because the provider had taken steps to prevent abuse from happening and because staff were safely recruited.

We found that while there were minor issues with some environmental comforts, the premises were safe, well maintained and appropriate for the purpose of providing care to older people.

We found that the quality monitoring and assuring system was still in its infancy, but because there was evidence of further future growth within the monitoring system, because the service was only six months old and because there was other evidence that people were satisfied with the service provision, we judged that the provider was compliant with this regulation.