• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Elton Lodge

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

22-24 Selden Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2LN (01903) 230798

Provided and run by:
Elton Lodge Limited

All Inspections

11 March 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 11 March 2015.

Elton Lodge is a care home with nursing in Worthing West Sussex which is registered to accommodate and care for 21 people. At the time of the inspection 17 people were using the service.

Elton Lodge has a registered manager 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection on 24 June 2013, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements regarding cleanliness and infection control. We also asked them to make improvements in respect of assessing and monitoring the quality of service. The provider wrote to us and told us what they would do to improve infection control practice; we found that improvements had been made.

Care workers were not knowledgeable about the requirements of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and documentation did not always show people's decisions to receive care had been appropriately assessed, respected and documented. Care workers were also unable to demonstrate a working knowledge of the MCA and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They were unable to demonstrate that they were able to identify when someone was being deprived of their liberty.

People using the service told us that they felt safe. Safeguarding training was delivered annually and care workers were able to identify and recognise signs of abuse. Procedures were in place identifying how people could raise concerns and staff were aware of these.

When risks were identified people were supported to remain safe. Care workers were able to recognise risk and change their care accordingly to meet any additional needs.

Staff recruitment procedures were in place so that people were protected from the employment of unsuitable staff. Induction training was mandatory to assess care staff were suitable for their roles.

Members of staff responsible for supporting people with their medicines had received additional training to ensure people’s medicines were being administered, stored and disposed of correctly.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. When identified, people at risk of malnutrition and dehydration were properly assessed to ensure their needs were met. Most people told us the food was of a good standard and readily available.

When people’s additional health care needs were identified the registered manager engaged with other health and social care agencies and professionals to maintain people’s safety and welfare.

People told us that their care was provided to a good standard. Care workers were able to demonstrate they had taken time to know the people they supported. People were encouraged and supported by care workers to make choices about their care on a daily basis.

People told us and we could see that all staff treated people with respect and ensured their dignity was respected at all times.

Care plans were personalised to each individual and contained detailed information to assist care workers to provide care in a manner that respected that person’s individual needs and wishes. Relatives were involved at the care planning stage and during regular reviews.

People knew how to complain and were happy to provide feedback if this was required. Procedures were in place to manage and respond to complaints in an effective way.

Residents and care staff were actively encouraged to provide feedback on the quality of the service provided by the use of quality assurance questionnaires and regular meetings. Care staff felt supported by the registered manager as a result because suggestions were listened to and changes made.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 which corresponds to regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

24 June 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

On the day of our inspection there were twenty people who used the service. We spoke with five people who used the service, the manager and two members of staff.

We saw that the provider had taken action to ensure people's privacy, dignity and independence were always protected.

People told us that they were happy in the home and said staff were kind and friendly. One person said 'I feel safe and secure here.'

People told us that staff understood their needs and provide appropriate care and support. One person told us 'My key worker is excellent.'

We found two of the four issues identified at our last inspection in December 2012 had been attended to. However, the other two issues had not been addressed.

We found that the home's systems for assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision had not identified several potential infection control risks. Additionally, the care and welfare aspect of people who use the services, in particular the area of infection control, had not been adequately attended to. This put people who used the service at risk of infection, contamination and cross infection.

11 December 2012

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection we spoke with ten people who used the service and four members of staff. We looked at six care plans. The people we spoke with told us they were very happy in the home and told us the staff were kind. One person told us 'The girls are so kind, nothing is too much trouble." People said that they had choice in how they spent their days and told us they felt safe living at the home.

We found that the issues identified at our previous inspection in January 2012 had all been attended to. However, further concerns were identified.

We found that people spoke highly of the care and treatment they received and the home adequately addressed their health and social needs. However those who were more frail or had difficulty in communicating did not receive the same level of respect and compassion. While this did not impact on the care provided it demonstrated a lack of thought and respect for these people's privacy, dignity and human rights.

We found that the home's quality monitoring system had not identified several potential infection control risks. This put people living in the home at risk of infection, contamination and cross infection.

26 January 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

People told us that they liked the home.

People told us that they were supported by a kind and helpful staff team.

A relative told us that they were very happy with the home and it had, 'A very friendly and family like atmosphere'.

Staff told us that enjoyed working in the home. The also told us that training and supervision was inconsistent.