You are here

Kings Lodge Nursing Home Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 September 2014
Date of Publication: 31 October 2014
Inspection Report published 31 October 2014 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 10 September 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

We spoke to health professionals.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

We carried out an inspection at Kings Lodge Nursing Home on 28 January 2014. We found that care and treatment was not planned and delivered in a way that ensured people’s safety and welfare.

Following our inspection the provider sent us information advising that they were compliant. At this inspection we spoke with people who used the service, visitors to the home and eight staff; we observed the care and support provided while sitting in the lounges and dining rooms on each floor, and we looked at six care plans and the associated records. We found the home was compliant with this essential standard.

People told us, “The staff are very good, I have no complaints, although I do get a bit bored”. “Yes I am happy here, the staff are very kind” and, “I am well looked after I can do much as I want to. I like reading my paper”. A visitor to the home said, “Yes everything is fine. Staff attend when they are needed” and, a relative told us, “People are looked after extremely well here, the staff do everything they can to make their life comfortable”.

The manager told us there had been a number of changes since the last inspection, including the introduction of a new care planning system. The manager said they were working to make sure the changes were embedded in practice at the home, consequently they had decided to admit only one person each fortnight. This meant that the manager and senior staff were clear that they could meet people’s needs, before they were offered a place at the home. The home offered places to people who required nursing and residential support; they were admitted to either unit and nursing care was provided by nurses working on the unit or district nurses, depending on their support needs.

We found that people’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home, and there was evidence in the care plans that they and their relatives were involved in these assessments. Relatives told us they had been involved in the assessment process, and we saw that they had supported people by signing consent forms for photographs and bed barriers when people were unable to make those decisions for themselves. One relative said, “We visit at any time and we have always found the staff to be very supportive of (our relative). They let us know if there have been any changes and they are aware of each person needs, we can see that they treat people as individuals”.

The care plans were person centred. They reflected people’s choices and preferences, and there were clear guidelines for staff to follow when providing care. We found evidence that people’s individual needs had been identified and appropriate action had been taken. For example, we saw that good practice had been followed in relation to a pressure ulcer; with treatment documented and evaluated to show that it was appropriate.

Risk assessments identified people’s specific needs, including communication, mobility and risk of falls. Nutritional needs had been assessed using the malnutrition universal assessment tool (MUST) and weights had been taken monthly, and as required. We saw that when people had lost weight the home had contacted the GP; they had requested advice or support from the dietician, and there was guidance for staff to follow with regard to additional drinks, snacks and supplements. Food and fluid charts were used to show the amount people ate and drank each day. However, some of the food and fluid charts we viewed had not been completed appropriately. There were gaps and they did not reflect the drinks and meals that staff said they had provided. Staff spoken with demonstrated a good understanding of people’s nutritional requirements, which included soft and pureed diets, depending on people’s assessed needs. We saw the chef spoke with people about their meals, choices were available and staff provided assistance at mealtimes if required. The chef demonstrated a clear understanding of people’s preferences and provided a range of meals, includi