You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 November 2018

The service provides personal care and accommodation for up to six people in a small care home setting as well as providing personal care to six people who live in a supported living scheme opposite St Ann's Lodge 2. The providers other service, St Ann’s Lodge 1, is located next door and is connected to St Ann’s Lodge 2 sharing a large garden and patio area.

St Ann’s Lodge 2 is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service also provides care and support to people living in the ‘supported living’ scheme so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. CQC does not regulate the premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

The care service had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At our last inspection in February 2016 we rated the service Good. At this inspection, we found the service had remained Good.

People told us they were happy living at St Ann’s Lodge 2 and said staff were kind, caring and respectful towards them. There was a relaxed, friendly and homely atmosphere at the service. Staff clearly knew people well and were person centred in their approach.

The managers led by example and offered a high level of support to people, staff and relatives, often supporting relatives with matters outside of their management role.

Relatives only had positive feedback and praise for the service. They were kept involved in people’s lives and were asked for their views about the support provided. They told us the staff team were caring, kind and compassionate. One relative described it as being part of ‘one big family’.

External health professionals were also positive in their feedback about the service provided at St Ann’s Lodge 2. They said staff were caring and worked well with them in achieving goals for people using the service.

The registered manager and staff team were committed to providing high quality person centred care and support. This ethos was central to how the service operated. The service was flexible and responsive to changes in people’s needs and individual family circumstances. The service had a stable and consistent staff team who had people’s wellbeing at heart.

Medicines were administered safely with accurate records available to show which medicines people had received.

Staff told us they received the support and training they needed to help them do their jobs well. The managers were proactive in ensuring staff completed training relevant to the needs of people living at the service. This included specialist training to enable staff to care for people with particular needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff supported people to meet their nutritional and healthcare needs. Health professionals had been consulted to provide specialist advice and guidance to staff where needed.

People and their relatives felt able to speak to the registered manager or any of the staff team at any time if they needed help and assistance.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 November 2018

The service was safe.

There were enough staff to meet people's individual needs.

People were kept safe from harm and abuse. Any risks to people were assessed and action taken to minimise these.

People were supported to take their medicines safely.

Appropriate pre-employment checks were completed to help ensure people’s safety.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 November 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were well supported and received training relevant to their role.

The provider followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Staff supported people to meet their nutritional and healthcare needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 November 2018

The service was caring.

People using the service had meaningful relationships with the staff. Staff knew them well and provided care and support in line with their wishes and preferences

People were treated with respect and dignity and staff were kind, caring and compassionate towards them.

People received support to develop and maintain their relationships with family and friends.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 November 2018

The service was responsive.

Managers and staff knew people very well and responded promptly to any changes in their care and support needs.

People were supported to lead active lives and to maintain regular contact with family and friends.

Support planning was person centred, involved the person using the service and care documentation was made accessible to them.

Arrangements were in place for dealing with concerns and complaints. People and their relatives said that the service involved them and listened to them.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 November 2018

The service was well led.

An experienced management team promoted high standards of care and support for people using the service at St Ann’s Lodge 2. The staff team were motivated and engaged in providing meaningful and personalised care.

Staff were well supported by the managers who were approachable and listened to their views.

The ethos of the home was positive and promoted the delivery of high quality compassionate person-centred care. People's needs were at the heart of how the service was delivered.