Archived: Langley House

Langley House was last inspected on 9 and 10 April 2015 and was rated Good overall and rated Required Improvement in the area of Effective. We informed the provider that further work was required to ensure the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). During this inspection we found that the provider had ensured improvements were made in this area.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Langley House is run by a charity, Durham Aged Mineworkers` Homes Association (DAMHA) and provides care and accommodation for up to 26 older people, including people living with dementia. Langley House is a purpose-built, single storey care home situated on Sunderland Road in the centre of Horden, County Durham which is on a bus route and close to local amenities. Langley House comprised of 26 bedrooms, all of which were en-suite.

Facilities included a lounge/bar, a smoking lounge, a dining room, communal bathrooms, shower rooms and toilets, a hairdressing room and an enclosed, communal, sensory garden. The general reception was large and spacious with comfortable seated areas.

We saw that entry to the premises was controlled by key-pad entry and all visitors were required to sign in. This meant the provider had appropriate security measures in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service.

People who used the service and their relatives were complimentary about the standard of care at Langley House. We saw staff supporting and helping to maintain people’s independence. People were encouraged to care for themselves where possible. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people using the service.

Training records were up to date and staff received supervisions and appraisals, which meant that staff were properly supported to provide care to people who used the service.

The layout of the building provided adequate space for people with walking aids or wheelchairs to mobilise safely around the home.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met. All the care records we looked at contained evidence of consent.

Medicines were stored safely and securely, and procedures were in place to ensure people received medicines as prescribed.

People had access to food and drink throughout the day and we saw staff supporting people at meal times when required.

Activities were arranged for people who used the service based on their likes and interests and to help meet their social needs. The service had good links with the local community.

All the care records we looked at showed people’s needs were assessed. Care plans and risk assessments were in place when required and daily records were up to date. Care plans were personalised and were reviewed regularly.

We saw staff used a range of assessment tools and kept clear records about how care was to be delivered. People who used the service had access to healthcare services and received ongoing healthcare support.

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place and people who used the service, their relatives and visitors were aware of how to make a complaint.

The provider had a robust quality assurance system in place and gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Everyone was complimentary of the quality of care they received. One person said, 'I haven't lived here long but I like it a lot. It's lovely.' A visiting relative said 'It's so clean and no smell. Mam's room is lovely and she loves to spend time in the lounge. The staff are very friendly and spend time with her.'

There was a calm friendly atmosphere around the home and people were seen to respond positively to the staff throughout.

The environment was clean, bright, modern and free from odours. The design, layout and security of the building were fit for purpose and promoted people's dignity, independence and wellbeing.

People told us they were happy with the staff employed by the service and the care they provided. There were sufficient staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

At a previous inspection we had found care records were not maintained in an appropriate format. On this visit we found improvements had been made to care records which meant the risks of people receiving unsafe or inappropriate care or treatment were reduced.

We spoke with six people who lived at Langley House and two visiting relatives. Everyone was complimentary of the quality of care they received. One relative said, 'We looked at a few homes; the reception we got here was excellent and it's very close to my home so I can walk here to visit every day.'

There was a calm friendly atmosphere around the home and people were seen to respond positively to the staff throughout. The environment was clean, bright, modern and free from odours.

Everybody we spoke with told us they felt safe at Langley House and with the care staff employed by the service.

People said the staff knew them well and how best to help and support them in their everyday life. One person said "They treat me well. I like all the girls.'

There were arrangements in place to gain additional feedback about services from user satisfaction surveys, relatives and staff questionnaires.

The information and documents within people's care plans were not in an appropriate format to ensure that people were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment.