Archived: Stratfield Lodge Residential Home

Updated 16 January 2015

One inspector visited the home on 9 July 2014 and we spoke with four people, four staff, the home manager (who manages the home on a day to day basis), the registered manager and the representative of the provider. We sought the views of two relatives by telephone and one by email. We observed care and support in communal areas and also looked at the kitchen and five people’s bedrooms. We looked at three people’s care records in detail to track the care and support they received. We also looked at some care records for one other person and a range of documents about and how the home was managed.

Before our inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give us some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they planned to make. We reviewed this and other information we held about the home such as information about incidents they had made to us. We also contacted six health and social care professionals who work with the home to obtain their views. As part of the inspection we asked the home manager to send us information following the inspection about the staff training and the training plan.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We inspected Stratfield Lodge Residential Home in January 2014 and found the home had met the standards we inspected.

This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?’

The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.

Updated 16 January 2015

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 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

This was an unannounced inspection. During the visit, we spoke with four people, four staff, the home manager (who manages the home on a day to day basis), the registered manager and the representatives of the provider. The registered manager and the representatives of the provider are a family. As part of the inspection we also sought the views of four relatives and health and social care professionals.

There was a registered manager at the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider.

Stratfield Lodge Residential Home provides accommodation and personal care for 17 people who have learning disabilities, mental health and/or dementia care needs. At the time of the inspection there were 17 people living at the home.

Some of the people who lived at the home had complex needs and were not able to tell us their experiences. We saw that those people and the people we spoke with were smiling, happy and relaxed in the home.

People told us they felt safe at the home. Staff knew how to recognise any signs of abuse. However, they had not made a safeguarding referral as they should have when someone had received poor nursing care in another health setting.

We saw people received care and support in a personalised way. Staff knew people well and understood their needs. We found that people received the health, personal and social care and support they needed. However, we found that one person’s received the care they needed and staff knew how to care for them but there was not a written plan on how to care for this person.

We found that staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. People had access to the local community and had individual activities provided.

Staff received an induction, core training and some specialist training so they had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.

People, staff, relatives and professionals commented on the friendly and family atmosphere at the home. One person said: “I’m so happy here. I go out with staff and the owner; there is not one member of staff that I don’t like”. A relative told us: “I have total confidence in them, I like that it is family run”. There was a person centred culture at the home with a focus on people being involved in all aspects of the home. There was a clear management structure and staff, representatives and people felt comfortable talking to the managers about any concerns and ideas for improvements. There were systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service provided.