Archived: Ivor Lodge Limited

Updated 17 March 2016

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 inspection took place on 17 December 2015 and was unannounced.

The inspection teams consisted of one inspector and a nurse specialist adviser.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the home and information from meetings held with the local authority commissioners and the police.

We had received two notifications from the provider since the last inspection. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

During the inspection we spent time observing care and support being provided throughout the home. We spoke with four people using the service, the registered manager, a senior carer, cook and two care workers.

We looked at records relating to all aspects of the service including care and staffing, as well as policies and procedures. We also looked in detail at three people’s care records and the recruitment files of three care workers.

Updated 17 March 2016

The Inspection took place on 17 December 2015 and was unannounced, which meant the provider did not know we were coming.

The service was last inspected in July 2013 and at the time the service was meeting the regulations assessed during the inspection.

The service had 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. The registered provider was also the registered manager at this service.

People were happy and told us that they felt safe. Staff were able to explain how they kept people safe from abuse, and knew what external assistance there was to follow up and report suspected abuse. Staff were knowledgeable about their responsibilities and trained to look after people and protect them from harm and abuse.

Staff were recruited in accordance with the provider’s recruitment procedures that ensured staff were qualified and suitable to work at the home. We observed there to be sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs and who worked in a co-ordinated manner.

Medicines were ordered, stored and administered safely.

There were a number of infection control and privacy and dignity issues that required attention by the provider.

Staff received appropriate induction and ongoing training for their job role, had access to people’s care records and were knowledgeable about people’s needs that were important to meet their needs.

People’s care and support needs had been assessed and people were involved in the development of their plan of care. People told us they were satisfied with the care provided.

People were provided with a choice of meals that met their dietary needs. Alternatives were provided for people that did not like the meal offered. The catering staff were provided with up to date information about people’s dietary needs and potential allergies.

People felt staff were kind and caring, and their privacy and dignity was respected in the delivery of care and their choice of lifestyle.

We observed staff speak with people in a kind, and compassionate way. People told us that care workers were polite, respectful and protected their privacy.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs.

People told us that they had developed good relationships with staff.

We observed staff regularly offered people choices and respected their decisions.

People told us that they were able to continue contact with the outside community, which was important to them. These included the opportunity to maintain contact with family and friends.

Staff told us they had access to information about people’s care and support needs and what was important to people. Care staff were supported and trained to ensure their knowledge, skills and practice in the delivery of care was updated, though some courses had not been undertaken recently, which meant some staff may not have the latest training information. Staff knew they could make comments or raise concerns with the management team about the way the service was run and knew it would be acted on.

The provider had developed opportunities for people to express their views about the service. These included weekly meetings and the views and suggestions from people using the service, their relatives and health and social care professionals through periodic questionnaires.

Staff sought appropriate medical advice and support from health care professionals. Care plans included the changes to people’s care and treatment. People were confident to raise any issues, concerns or to make complaints.

People who used the service spoke positively about the open culture and communication with the staff. We noted that the provider interacted politely with people and they responded well to him.

The provider had a clear management structure within the home, which meant that the staff were aware who to contact out of hours. Care staff understood their roles and responsibilities and knew how to get support.

There were some systems in place for monitoring of the building and equipment. However these did not cover the full range of internal audits which meant that there were areas of the home which required immediate improvement to ensure people’s safety.

Staff were aware of the reporting procedure for faults and repairs and had access to external contractors for maintenance to manage any emergency repairs.