You are here

Archived: Lonsdale House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 July 2015

The inspection took place on 27 May 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection in December 2013 the provider was meeting all of the requirements that we looked at.

Lonsdale House provides accommodation for adults with mental health problems. At the time of the inspection there were 14 people using the service. The service had 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were kept safe and protected from harm by staff who had a good understanding of safeguarding and the different types of abuse. Staff members we spoke with were all confident in reporting any concerns and knew the correct process to follow. People had detailed risk assessments that clearly set out the risks involved with their care with clear guidance for staff to manage these risks and keep people safe. There were enough staff to provide people with the level of support they required.

People’s medicines were managed safely, and people were supported to manage their own medicines wherever possible. We saw that medicines were all stored correctly in locked cabinets and there was a clear process for recording and auditing medicines so that they could all be accounted for.

People were cared for by staff who were well trained and supported, and were confident in providing people with effective care that met their needs.

People were asked for their consent for care and were provided with care that protected their freedom and promoted their rights their rights. Staff asked people for their permission to perform care tasks and gave people choices about their support.

People received the food and drink they required, and were supported to shop and cook for themselves wherever possible. We saw that people had a choice from the menu which was available in all the communal areas. People were able to request different meals if they did not like the choices on the menu.

We saw that staff had good caring relationships with people and knew each person’s individual preferences and needs well. People told us they liked the staff and felt the service was caring and supported them well. Staff respected people’s privacy and personal space. We were told that staff used the monitors to talk to people in their rooms and asked permission to come in and to perform any care tasks required.

People had detailed care plans that were personalised to their particular needs, and staff had a good knowledge of these plans. People had been involved in the development of their care plans, and were involved in the reviews along with family members and other professionals involved in their care.

The provider had a complaints policy in place and people knew how to make a complaint or give their feedback about the service. People told us they felt confident to raise any issues with members of staff or the registered manager, and that their concerns would be listened to and addressed.

The service had an open culture that encouraged people to be involved in the service. There were regular resident meetings that allowed people to discuss their feelings about the service and talk through any issues or suggestions they had.

There were regular audits as part of a quality assurance programme to make sure that people received high quality care. We saw details of these audits and updates to people’s care records from these. We saw there were regular reviews of care files to make sure they were kept up to date to reflect people’s changing needs.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 July 2015

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to identify and report any suspected harm or abuse. There were enough staff to provide people with safe care and meet their needs. People’s medicines were managed safely with clear recording and audit trails for people’s medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 July 2015

The service was effective.

Staff members were well trained and supported, and had the skills they needed to support people in the home. People had the food and drink they required and were given choices about what they had. People’s health needs were regularly monitored and they were able to access the health services they needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 July 2015

The service was caring.

Staff had good caring relationships with people and knew their individual needs and preferences well. People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff who knew how people wanted to receive their care and how they wanted to be given information and to make decisions.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 July 2015

The service was responsive.

People had been involved in creating their care plans. These plans were detailed and tailored to the individual, with clear outcomes and goals for people to achieve. The provider had a complaints policy which was advertised in the communal areas and people felt confident in making a complaint or giving feedback about the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 July 2015

The service was well led.

The service had an open culture that supported people to be involved through resident meetings and creating new activities for the service. There were quality assurance process in place including regular audits to make sure that people received high quality care.