Archived: Downham Lodge

We used the inspection to answer our five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people who used the service, visitors to the home and the staff told us.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

We saw that systems were in place to help ensure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The home had policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted since the last inspection. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

The registered manager was responsible for arranging staff rotas and took people's care needs into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience of staff required. This helped to ensure that people's needs were always met.

Policies and procedures were in place to help make sure unsafe practice could be identified and that people were protected.

Is the service effective?

There was an advocacy service available if people needed it, this meant that when required people could access additional support.

People's health and care needs were assessed with them and they were involved in the development of their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. People said they had been involved in the planning of their care and care plans reflected their current needs and wishes.

People's needs were taken into account with appropriate signage. The layout of the service enabled people to move freely and safely around the home. The premises had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people living at the home.

Visitors confirmed they were able to see people in private and that visiting times were flexible.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. One person told us, "The staff encourage us to be as independent as possible, but are always there to help us if we need it". We spoke with a visiting professional who said, "All the staff here are really kind and caring".

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People had access to a range of daily activities both inside and outside of the home.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy, but people we spoke with told us they had no complaints to make. We saw there was a complaints log, but no entries had been made since the last inspection. We saw there was a suggestions and comments book freely available for people to use in the quiet room. Wwe saw that only positive comments about the service had been made.

Is the service well led?

People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed and annual satisfaction survey. Comments and ideas were listened to and acted upon in a timely manner.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a cohesive manner.

The service had a quality assurance system and records seen by us showed that notes for action were addressed promptly. As a result, the quality of the service was continually improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure people received a good quality service at all times.

We spoke with two members of staff who both told us they liked working at Downham Lodge. One person said 'I like working here everyone is friendly and we all get on well together".

On the day or our visit we observed people in different areas of the home and we saw that staff used people's preferred form of address. We saw that when members of staff provided care, they spoke clearly to people and explained what they were doing and why, which reassured people.

We looked at the procedures for medicine administration and we saw that the home had a clear policy and procedure for the receipt, administration and disposal of medicines.

We saw that Downham Lodge had an effective system to ensure the service it provided to people was monitored and reviewed.