You are here

Osborne Lodge Rest Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 23 February 2019

Osborne Lodge is a care home without nursing. It is a family run care home offering accommodation for up to 34 older people living with a range of health and social care needs. A small number of people were living with dementia. People in care homes receive accommodation and their care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection. This inspection took place on 21 and 23 January 2019 when there were 25 people using the service.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this care home at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still registered as manager on our register. A new manager had been appointed in November 2018 and has applied to the Care Quality Commission to become registered. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run.

At our last inspection we rated the service as overall 'Requires improvement’. This was because staff had not been consistently deployed in such a way as to ensure that people received their care safely and in a timely way. Some further improvements were needed to the records relating to people’s care and support and to embed robust management arrangements. At this inspection, our findings continued to support a rating of ‘Requires improvement’.

Some records relating to people’s care continued to be incomplete or inaccurate and were not stored securely. Whilst there were systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of service, these were still not being fully effective in delivering all the improvements needed to achieve a rating of ‘Good’.

Whilst people received their medicines as prescribed, there were shortfalls in relation to how some medicines were stored and some medicines records were incomplete or inaccurate.

We were not consistently able to ascertain what action had been taken to mitigate new or developing risks or in response to incidents or accidents.

The provider had made improvements which ensured that there were now consistently sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs.

Overall, staff had received the training and support they required to meet people's individual needs. A number of staff did not have up to date safeguarding training, but they were able to demonstrate an understanding of how to identify abuse and to explain the actions they would take if they identified any concerns. The manager is arranging for this training to take place.

Staff felt well supported by the leadership team and had been receiving periodic supervision and an appraisal to check to they understood how to perform their role and responsibilities effectively.

People were supported to maintain their health and well-being and had access to a range of healthcare services when they needed them.

People were treated with dignity and respect and staff were kind and caring in their interactions with people. People received care that was centred on them as an individual.

Friends and family could visit their family members at any time. They were confident they could raise concerns or complaints and these would be dealt with.

People were positive about the activities provided. Plans were in place to develop these further, including in the wider community.

Families told us that people were supported to have a dignified and pain free death. We have made a recommendation about further developing end of life support planning.

Staff were positive about the new manager. They told us morale was improving and that they felt more positive about their role.

The service work

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 23 February 2019

The service was not always safe.

We were not consistently able to ascertain what action had been taken to mitigate new or existing risks or in response to incidents or accidents.

Whilst people received their medicines as prescribed, there were shortfalls in relation to how some medicines were stored and some medicines records were incomplete or inaccurate.

The provider had made improvements which ensured that there were now consistently sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs.

The home was visibly clean and tidy and there were no malodours. Overall, staff were observed to follow good infection control measures.

Staff demonstrated a good awareness of safeguarding procedures and knew who to inform if they witnessed or had an allegation of abuse reported to them.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 February 2019

The service continued to be rated good.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 February 2019

The service continued to be rated good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 February 2019

The service continued to be rated good.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 23 February 2019

The service continued to be rated as requires improvement.

Some records relating to people’s care continued to be incomplete or inaccurate and were not stored securely.

Whilst there were systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of service, these were still not being fully effective in delivering all the improvements needed to achieve a rating of ‘Good’.

Staff were positive about the new manager. They told us morale was improving and that they felt more positive about their role.

The service worked in partnership and collaboration with other key organisations to support care provision and joined-up care.