You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 15 February 2017

The inspection took place on 29 December 2016 and 3 January 2017. The visit was unannounced.

Anita Janes Lodge is a residential home which provides care to people with mental health needs. It is registered to provide care for up to 16 people. At the time of our inspection visit there were 11 people living at the home.

There was 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. The registered manager was responsible for the management of two homes. There was also support manager in post to manage the day-to-day running of the service.

People using the service we spoke with said they thought the home was safe. Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and understood their responsibilities in this area. People's risk assessments had provided staff with information of how to support people safely. People using the service told us they thought medicines were given safely and on time. Staff had been subject to checks to ensure they were appropriate to work with the people who used the service.

Staff had been trained, in the main, to ensure they had skills and knowledge to meet people's needs. Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to allow, as much as possible, people to have an effective choice about how they lived their lives. People had plenty to eat and drink and everyone told us they liked the food provided. People's health care needs had been protected by referral to health care professionals when necessary.

People told us they liked the staff and got on very well with them, and we saw examples of staff working with people in a supportive and caring way. People and their representatives were involved in making decisions about care, treatment and support.

Care plans were individual to the people using the service and usually covered their health and social care needs. There were not sufficient numbers of staff to ensure that people's needs could be responded to in good time, though this was later rectified by the registered manager. Activities were in place to provide some stimulation for people and people took part in activities in their chosen community activities.

People told us they would tell staff if they had any concerns and were confident that proper action would be taken. People and staff were satisfied with how the home was run by the registered manager and the management team. Management carried out audits to check that the home was running properly to meet people's needs, though not all essential systems had been audited.

Inspection areas



Updated 15 February 2017

The service was safe.

People told us said that they were safe living in the service. Risk assessments contained enough detail to protect people's safety. Staff recruitment checks were in place to protect people from unsuitable staff. Staff knew how to report any suspected abuse to their management, and staff knew how to contact relevant agencies if abuse occurred. Medicine had been supplied to people as prescribed for them.



Updated 15 February 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were trained and supported to enable them to meet people’s needs, though more training was needed to provide fully comprehensive training to meet people's needs. People’s consent to care and treatment was sought in line with legislation and guidance. People had plenty to eat and drink and told us they liked the food served. There was positive collaboration with and referral to health services.



Updated 15 February 2017

The service was caring.

People told us that staff were friendly and caring. We found this to be the case in the conversations we heard between people and staff. Staff protected people’s rights to dignity, choice and privacy. People had been involved in planning and deciding what care they needed.



Updated 15 February 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans contained information for staff on how to respond to people's needs. Activities based on people's preferences and choices were available to them. People told us that management listened to and acted on their comments and concerns.


Requires improvement

Updated 15 February 2017

The service was not consistently well led.

Some systems had been audited in order to provide a quality service, though not all issues identified had been followed up. People told us that management listened to and acted on their comments and concerns. Staff told us the management team provided good support to them and had a clear vision of how friendly individual care was to be provided to meet people's needs.