Archived: Denmark Lodge

Updated 24 January 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was a comprehensive inspection, carried out by one inspector. The inspection took place on 2 January 2019 and was unannounced.

Prior to the inspection we looked at the information we had about the service. This information included the statutory notifications that the provider had sent to the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, tells us what the service does well and the improvements they plan to make.

During our inspection we spoke with five people living at Denmark Lodge. We observed the care and support being provided. We spoke with the registered manager and two members of staff. We have referred to feedback given to the provider, as part of their quality assurance processes, from three relatives, five social and healthcare professionals and one visitor. We looked at the care records for three people, including their medicines records. We looked at staff records, training records and quality assurance systems.

Updated 24 January 2019

Denmark Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Denmark Lodge can accommodate up to seven people who have a learning disability, autism and a mental health diagnosis. At the time of our inspection five people were living there. People had their own bedrooms with en suite facilities with access to a bathroom. They shared a lounge and dining room. Grounds around the property were accessible.

Denmark Lodge had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support, Building 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 lived as ordinary a life as any citizen.

This inspection took place on 2 January 2019. At the last comprehensive inspection in April 2016 the service was rated as Good overall. The key question Effective was rated as requires improvement with a recommendation for improving recording systems for the supervision of staff. Improvements had been made in relation to this. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good overall and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

A registered manager was in post who had been registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in 2010. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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.

People’s care and support was individualised and reflected their needs and wishes. They had lived together for some time and had been supported by a core group of staff providing them with consistency and continuity of care. People made choices about their day to day lives. 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. People were involved in the planning and review of their care and support. They chose the activities they wished to take part in. They went bowling, swimming, to the cinema and attended a fitness class. They went on holidays, day trips, to social clubs and attended local places of worship when they wished to. People kept in touch with those important to them

People’s preferred forms of communication were highlighted in their care records. Staff were observed spending time chatting and socialising with people. Good use was made of easy to read information which used photographs and pictures to illustrate the text. People had access to easy to read guides about advocacy and complaints.

People’s health and wellbeing was promoted. A weekly menu encouraged people to have vegetables and fruit in their diet. They helped to prepare and cook their meals. People had access to a range of health care professionals. They had annual health checks. People’s medicines were safely managed. People were supported at the end of their live and others were helped with their bereavement. A relative commented, “Thank you for giving so much help and care, with so much love and patience.”

People had positive relationships with staff, who understood them well, anticipating what would make them anxious or uncertain. Staff treated them with kindness and compassion. They understood and respected people’s diverse needs. Staff knew how to keep people safe and how to raise safeguarding concerns. Risks were well managed encouraging people’s independence. There were enough staff to meet their needs. This was kept under review as new people moved into the home. Staff recruitment and selection procedures were in place to ensure all necessary checks had been completed prior to employment.

People, their relatives and staff were invited to give feedback through quality assurance surveys, meetings, complaints and compliments. They had information about how to raise a complaint. The registered manager and provider completed a range of quality assurance audits to monitor and assess people’s experience of the service. Any actions identified for improvement were monitored to ensure they had been carried out. The registered manager worked closely with local organisations and agencies and national organisations to keep up to date with current best practice and guidance. Comments about Denmark Lodge included, “An excellent well run facility” and “Excellent care and support for each individual.”

Further information is in the detailed findings below.