The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Loughton Court

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

99-101 Trent Valley Road, Lichfield, Staffordshire, WS13 6EZ (01543) 304032

Provided and run by:
Veecare Ltd

All Inspections

02 March 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected this service on 2 March 2015. The inspection was unannounced. At our previous inspection in May 2013, the service was meeting the regulations that we checked.

The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 24 older people who may have dementia. Twenty one people were living at the home on the day of our inspection.

A requirement of the service’s registration is that they have a registered manager. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager working at the service. The registered manager was about to leave but the provider had recruited a new manager and a handover period had been arranged.

There was a calm, relaxed atmosphere at the home and people told us they felt safe and were happy living at the home. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm.

Staff were trained to care and support people safely and had a good understanding of people’s needs because they read their care plans and took the time to get to know them well. The registered manager operated safe recruitment processes and new staff received induction training that supported them to meet the needs of people living at the home.

People were supported to maintain good health and accessed the services of other health professionals. People told us they saw their doctor, district nurse and social worker when they needed to.

The registered manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. For people who were assessed as not having capacity, we saw that their families were involved in discussions about who should make decisions in their best interest.

We saw there were sufficient staff to support people and people did not have to wait long when they asked for assistance. People told us they liked the staff and we saw that they were relaxed and comfortable in their company. Staff understood people’s individual needs and abilities and were alert to verbal and non-verbal cues and responded in a way that respected people’s dignity and promoted their independence.

People enjoyed the food at the home and had access to drinks and snacks to meet their nutritional needs. We saw people were able to make choices and relatives told us they were encouraged to visit whenever they liked. People were encouraged to take part in activities within the home.

People and their relatives were involved in planning and agreeing how they were cared for and supported. People told us the registered manager was approachable and they felt able to raise their concerns. The registered manager shared complaints with staff as an opportunity for learning and to make improvements to the service.

Audits were carried out to check the safety and quality of the service but these were not effective in identifying shortfalls in the way medicines were handled at the home, and the monitoring of people at risk of not drinking enough fluids. There was no system in place to monitor the information from accidents and incidents.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 which corresponds with a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the back of the report.

29 May 2013

During a routine inspection

At our last visit to Loughton Court Care Home we found that the service was not compliant in three key outcomes. We looked at these outcomes at this inspection visit. We wanted to know whether the service had made improvements. We found that improvements had been made and the service was compliant.

During our visit to the home we observed to see what life was like for people who lived in the home. We spent time talking with eight people who lived at the home and four members of staff. We also spoke with the newly appointed manager.

Risks to people's health and well being had been identified and measures had been put in place to protect people. Staff were familiar with people's needs and we observed that staff were friendly and supportive in their approach towards people. People we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they received. They spoke highly of the staff and described them as kind and caring. One person said, "I am happy with the care my relative receives'.

We saw that improvements had been made to the premises to ensure that the home was safe for people to live in. We saw that changes had been made to the way the home was staffed, however more improvement was needed to ensure that sufficient staff was available at all times. The manager assured us that staffing had been further reviewed.

Documents we read showed that the quality of the service people received at Loughton Court was regularly audited.

30 July 2012

During a routine inspection

Our visit to Loughton Court was unannounced which meant no one who lived or worked there knew we were coming. We carried out this review after we received concerns from a whistle blower and the local authority about the service. Concerns highlighted included care practices, the premises and procedures carried out in the home.

An expert by experience accompanied us on our visit. This person had experience and skills to communicate and informally observe the daily life for people who lived in the service.

During our visit to the home we watched to see what life was like for people who lived in the home. We spent time talking with six people who lived at the home, two visiting relatives and five members of staff. We also spoke with the manager, and the owner of Loughton Court.

People that used the services at Loughton Court have dementia and therefore not everyone was able to tell us about their experiences. To help us to understand the experiences people have we used our SOFI (Short Observational Framework for Inspection) tool. SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Risks to people's health and well being had been identified and measures had been put in place to protect people. Staff were familiar with people's needs and we observed that staff were friendly and supportive in their approach towards people.

The relatives we met told us they were happy with the care their family members received. They spoke highly of the staff and described them as kind and caring. One person said, "I am happy with the care my relative receives. I visit every morning and I am always made welcome by the staff."

Staff demonstrated that they had a good understanding of the needs of the people they supported. Two staff spoken with told us that they received regular supervision to monitor their care practices and had attended recent training which helped them to keep their skills up to date.

A new manager had recently started working at Loughton Court. We saw that the manager had looked at how the home was operating. This included looking at records used in the home and procedures followed by care staff. Documents we read showed that the manger had started to audit the service people received at Loughton Court.

19 April 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We visited Loughton Court to look for improvements in the areas where we had concerns at a previous visit.

At a previous visit issues relating to care plans, none reporting of a safeguarding issue, the homes environment, staff supervision and quality audits were identified.

Since the last visit the previous manager has left her position and a new manager was in post. The manager had a wealth of ideas to put in to place at the home and was also aware of the provider's action plan submitted to CQC which is due to be met by May 2012.

At this follow up visit, compliance had been achieved with no duplicated care records visible and the correct reporting of any safeguarding concerns. Issues relating the home's environment, staff supervision and quality assurance also showed some signs of improvement to meet compliance.

9 January 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

A previous inspection of the home had led to compliance actions being made; the purpose of this 'follow up' inspection was to review the improvements.

We identified at the previous visit that the management of the home was crucial to the overall theme of the concerns raised and the compliance actions have been made to promote compliance.

People who lived in the home have different forms of dementia so we were unable to discuss their care with them. Where people were not able to express their views to us we observed interaction between people and staff and how people chose what activities to do and how to spend their time. At the previous visit, relatives we spoke to, told us they were happy with the care given at the home and had not needed to raise any issues of concern.

One relative told us her mother had been in the home for over two years and she was settled and appeared content. She told us the staff were friendly and approachable.

The provider had sent us an action plan to show us how they were going to become compliant.

18 November 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

We carried out this review as the local authority had raised their concerns to the CQC after previously visiting the home. We noted similar concerns although the provider and the home manager had addressed some issues.

Management of the home is crucial to the overall theme of the concerns raised and compliance actions have been made to promote compliance.

People who lived in the home have different forms of dementia so we were unable to discuss their care with them. Where people were not able to express their views to us we observed interaction between people and staff and how people chose what activities to do and how to spend their time. Relatives we spoke to told us they were happy with the care given at the home and had not had to raise any issues of concern.

One relative told us her mother had been in the home for over two years and she was settled and appeared content. She told us the staff were friendly and approachable.

One relative told us that the staff did try to encourage the people living in the home to join in activities but this did prove to be difficult. During the visit two carers carried out an activity to music session with musical instruments. We saw seven people join the session and the interaction was excellent.