You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 November 2017

The inspection was carried out on 9 October 2017 and was unannounced. Langdale is registered to provide personal care for up to 19 older people. Accommodation is provided in single and shared rooms some of which have en-suite facilities. The home is situated in the Bierley area of Bradford. At the time of the inspection there were 17 people living in the home.

The last inspection was in October 2016 and the service was rated ‘requires improvement’ overall. We found one breach of regulation in relation to Good Governance (Regulation 17). At this inspection we found improvements had been made with better documentation kept. For example in relation to the management of medicines.

A registered manager was in post who had worked at the home for a number of years. 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 and relatives spoke positively about the home. They said good quality care was provided. People said the staff team were friendly and kind and the registered manager was approachable.

Medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed and clear records were kept demonstrating the support people had been provided with.

People said they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures had been followed to help protect people from harm. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and measures put in place to keep people safe. These measures were regularly reviewed.

The premises were safely managed with appropriate checks undertaken to the building. The décor in some areas of the building was tired and would benefit from decoration.

There were enough staff deployed to ensure safe and prompt care. The staff team were seen to respond quickly to people’s requests for assistance. Safe recruitment procedures were in place to help ensure staff were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people.

People praised the staff who supported them. Staff received a range of training and support to give them the skills to do their role effectively. This included regular supervision.

People had access to a suitable choice of food. Nutritional risks were assessed and measures put in place to protect people from harm.

The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The service worked with a range of health professionals to help ensure people’s healthcare needs were met.

Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People were listened to and there was a friendly atmosphere within the home. Where possible, people’s independence was promoted.

People’s care needs were assessed and used to formulate detailed and person centred plans of care. These reflected people’s needs and preferences. Staff knew people well and their plans of care which gave us assurance they were consistently followed.

An activities co-ordinator was employed who worked at the home five days a week, and provided people with a range of activities and social opportunities.

People and staff praised the way the home was run. They described it as personalised and friendly and said the registered manager dealt with any issues that arose. We saw the staff team worked well together.

Audits and checks were undertaken by the management team to monitor how the service was performing. People’s feedback was sought and used to make improvements to the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 November 2017

The service was safe.

Medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed and clear documentation was in place to demonstrate this.

Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and measures put in place to protect people from harm. This included obtaining specialist equipment.

There were enough staff to ensure people were appropriately supervised and their needs were responded to in a timely way. Staff were recruited safely to help ensure they were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 November 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received a range of training which was updated regularly. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of the people and topics we asked them about.

The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People’s healthcare needs were assessed. The service worked with a range of health professionals to ensure healthcare needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 November 2017

The service was caring.

People said staff treated them well and this was confirmed by the interactions we observed during the inspection.

Staff knew people well and had developed good, positive relationships with them.

Where possible, people’s independence was promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 November 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s care needs were assessed and used to produce a range of suitable care plans. People said care was appropriate and met their individual needs.

An activities co-ordinator was employed who provided people with a range of activities, five days a week.

People said they were satisfied with the service and had no cause to complain. Mechanisms were in place to support people to raise complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 November 2017

The service was well led.

People, relatives and staff all spoke positively about the way the home was run. We found a warm and friendly atmosphere where staff knew people well.

Audits and checks were undertaken to help ensure the service was operating at the required standard.

People’s views and feedback was sought and used to make positive changes to the service.