You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 August 2019

About the service

Acorn Lodge - Bournemouth is a care home providing personal care to nine adults with a learning disability at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to nine people.

The service was registered to support up to nine people. This is larger than current best practice guidance in relation to care homes for people with a learning disability. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building looking just like the surrounding large houses. In other respects, the service had been developed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support. This ensures people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

People told us they felt safe at the service, and that staff were available when they needed them. Staff understood their responsibilities for safeguarding people. New staff only started work after pre-employment checks to ensure they were suitable to work in a care setting. People’s individual risks were assessed and managed in the least restrictive way possible. Medicines were stored and managed safely. The premises and equipment were kept clean and were regularly maintained.

Everyone we met was comfortable to approach staff and clearly enjoyed their company. Staff were kind and respectful, and upheld people’s privacy and dignity. They also promoted people’s independence. Most had worked at the service a long time and knew people well. They understood how people communicated and tailored their approach accordingly. People’s protected characteristics, such as religion and sexuality, were respected.

The registered manager kept up to date with current good practice and ensured staff were aware of this. People’s care was planned and delivered accordingly. People had the healthcare they needed. They had a varied diet according to their preferences and health needs. The premises were adapted for people with limited mobility. Staff were supported through training and supervision, with regular refresher training in key topics.

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

People’s care was tailored to their individual needs and preferences. People and their relatives were involved in planning and reviewing care. People led active lives, spending time out in the community doing things they were interested in. They had got to know some of the staff in local shops and cafes. People had any support they needed to keep in touch with their families. The registered manager had responded promptly and openly to the one complaint in the past year.

The service had an open and relaxed atmosphere. The registered manager and staff had an ethos of respecting people and prioritising their needs. A person commented of the service, “It’s very well organised.” The registered manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities. They had an open-door policy and spent much of their time with people and staff. Staff told us their colleagues were supportive and worked as a team. The registered manager oversaw ongoing quality checks. Any shortfalls found were promptly addressed.

The Se

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 August 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 August 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 August 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 August 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 August 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.