Archived: Glenkindie Lodge Residential Care Home

People felt safe in the home. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns. Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required at the times they needed and recruitment procedures protected people from receiving unsafe care from care staff unsuited to the job.

Staff followed the information held in care records which contained risk assessments and risk management plans to protect people from identified risks and helped to keep them safe. People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed and medicines were obtained, stored, administered and disposed of safely.

People received care from staff that were supported to carry out their roles to meet the assessed needs of people living at the home. Staff received training in areas that enabled them to understand and meet the care needs of each person and people were actively involved in decisions about their care and support needs.

There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services when they were needed.

People received care from compassionate and supportive staff which promoted positive relationships with each other. Staff understood the needs of the people they supported and used their knowledge of people’s lives to engage them in meaningful conversations. People were supported to make their own choices and when they needed additional support the staff arranged for an advocate to become involved.

Care plans were written in a person centred manner and focussed on giving people choices and opportunities to receive their care in a way they preferred. They detailed how people wished to be supported and people were fully involved in making decisions about their care. People participated in a range of activities and received the support they needed to help them do this. People were able to choose where they spent their time and what they did. People were able to raise complaints and they were investigated and resolved promptly.

People and staff were confident in the management of the home and felt listened to. People were able to provide feedback and this was acted on and improvements were made. The service had audits and quality monitoring systems in place which ensured people received good quality care that enhanced their life. Policies and procedures were in place which reflected the care provided at the home.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

People who used the service told us that they felt safe and that they had no concerns about how staff treated them. A relative, who visited regularly, described staff, as "Super," and told us that they had never had any concerns about safety. Staff received training to ensure they understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding the vulnerable adults in their care. Staff also knew who to contact to report any suspicions of abuse.

We found some medication unaccounted for and records relating to medication were incomplete, which meant that medication was not safely managed.

There was no planned approach to maintenance of the premises, to ensure they were safe and suitable. Where the need for improvements had been identified, there were no timescales for carrying out the work. We were also sufficiently concerned about fire safety and fire evacuation procedures to contact Northamptonshire County Council Fire and Rescue service to ask them to carry out a review.

Is the service effective?

People who used the service told us that they received the care and support that they needed. We saw that people’s needs had been assessed and care delivered according to people’s needs.

Is the service caring?

Conversations were calm and relaxed and staff treated people with dignity and respect. People told us that all staff always treated them with respect.

Through discussion with staff, people who used the service and looking at records, we found that staff took account of people’s individual needs.

Is the service responsive?

People’s care needs were reviewed regularly. This helped to ensure that people continued to receive care that was appropriate and effective. We saw that pressure relieving equipment had been put in place for someone whose health had deteriorated to reduce the risk of pressure ulcers.

Is the service well-led?

We found that the overall management of the service did not ensure that people received a quality service. Quality assurance processes were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. However, we saw that adequate systems for acting on required improvements were not in place, particularly in relation to maintenance and the upkeep of the premises.

We spoke with four of people that lived at the home and two visitors. People we spoke with told us that they were happy with the service received. A person said, 'I like living here". A visitor said, ''Activities are getting better. I have seen my relative sing and clap their hands when there is a sing-a-long.'

We found that the provider had made the improvements we required at our last inspection. We saw that the home had employed an activity coordinator who arranged, delivered and coordinated a range of activities for the people that used the service. Those activities promoted people's independence and helped them pass the time. People had been individually assessed to see if they could make their own decisions. If people could not make their own decisions we saw that the provider had worked with advocates and the local authority to make decisions on people's behalf. We found that the provider had recommenced their quality audits which ensured the quality of service people received.

We found that the provider had a programme of skills development for their staff which ensured people received consistent care.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

We spoke with three people that lived at the home and six care staff. People that lived at the home told us that they thought the home was clean and tidy. One person told us, 'When my clothes are dirty they are taken away to be cleaned and pressed. They come back lovely and clean.' A care staff said, 'There has been tremendous improvements in the last few weeks. The home has been cleaned thoroughly, and people have new beds and mattresses.'

We found that the provider had acted on the warning notice and made the required improvements. The home had been thoroughly cleaned, and beds mattresses and floor coverings replaced as needed. The home had sufficient cleaning staff which ensured the home was cleaned effectively.

We spoke with four people that lived at the home, six care staff, and three visitors. People and visitors we spoke with told us that the care provided was good. One person told us, 'I look after myself, but the care staff are there when I need help.' A visitor told us, 'The care staff are fantastic and look after my relative's every need. Pity the home needs a through clean.' Another visitor told us, 'The care staff are lovely but there is not many of them.'

The home environment, furniture, fittings and floor coverings had not been appropriately maintained and was dirty in a number of areas. There were insufficient numbers of cleaning staff to effectively clean the home.

The provider had effective recruitment procedures.

We found that the provider had not always notified us of incidents at the home. The provider's system to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided was not effective.

During this visit we spoke with the registered manager and a senior carer. They both said that improvements had been made since our visit and formal systems were in place to monitor the quality of services provided.

We found that the provider now had documented systems that demonstrated the quality of service provided and people who used the service, their representatives and carers were actively engaged in this process.

People we spoke with told us the care provided was good. On this inspection we found that care plans were appropriate and people were involved about decisions affecting their care. We observed staff interaction with people and saw that staff treated them respectfully and understood their needs. A person said, "Staff always help me." Staff were attentive to people's needs and involved them in daily activities. We heard music being played. When we talked to people they told us how much they enjoyed the music. One person said 'it made me go back to my youth'.

We found that there was competent staff to support people well. We saw that the home had a plan overseen by the local authority safeguarding team to manage a recently discovered anomaly concerning people's money. We found that the provider did not always know what was working well and what needed improving in the home.