Archived: Cleeve Lodge

People told us that no decisions about their care were taken without their involvement, and we saw their consent documented in the care records. Observation of practice showed that people were receiving effective, safe and appropriate care, which met their specific needs. People praised the home for the quality of the care provided. One person said, 'I couldn't have better care, they are so kind and patient.' One relative told us, 'They are always smiling and nothing is too much trouble. One day he said he just fancied a pork chop and they went and got him one.'

The home was clean and well maintained, which provided a pleasant and comfortable environment. We saw that the manager ensured that all staff knew and implemented the code of practice for infection control.

People told us that the staff provided excellent care, which made them feel safe and gave them confidence in the quality of their training.

Relatives we spoke with made positive comments about the approachability of the manager and how quickly they had addressed their complaints.

We spoke with relatives who were visiting. One person said, 'He is very happy and fond of the staff'. Another person said, 'They really look after him. They're very warm people and always welcome you whatever the time".

The provider had effective audit processes for medication and a robust system to prevent financial abuse, which were checked weekly by the manager. Staff told us they had recently completed safeguarding training and knew how to recognise abuse and report it. Staff told us they received regular unannounced spot checks and had three monthly supervisions with the manager. We examined six staff files which confirmed this.

People supported by the service were aware of how to complain. Complaints were fully investigated and resolved to their satisfaction, where possible. The manager reviewed complaints on the day they arose and took account of them to improve the service.

The provider had effective systems for assessing and monitoring infection control, food hygiene and health and safety. We saw detailed emergency and evacuation plans, which were reviewed six monthly by the manager. Staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of these plans and knew where they were kept.

We found that the necessary improvements had been made with regard to safeguarding, where the service had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

We saw that people were protected against the risks associated with drugs because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to safely manage medicines.

People's dignity and human rights were being respected and we saw them being actively encouraged to make choices regarding their daily routines.

We observed staff being attentive and kind when dealing with people and provided support where it was needed. However the care records were not consistent and key information such as people's needs and plans of care were not always easy to read or follow. This meant it was difficult for staff to digest information about the individual concerned and act upon it.

On the day of the inspection there was confusion as to who was in charge. We found there were insufficent staff available at the start of the day to safeguard the welfare of people using the service.

We saw that effective procedures for assessing and monitoring the quality of service provided were not in place. Whilst the manager told us that they often supervised the staff there was no record of this.