You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 March 2019

About the service:

Lucerne House is a residential care home for up to ten people living with a learning disability and/or autism. The organisation also supports two people who live in their own home, (known as Flat 6). At the time of our inspection these people were not in receipt of personal care so we did not carry out an inspection of the support they received. People living at Lucerne House had learning disabilities and their needs were varied. Some people needed support with living with autism, diabetes, dementia and epilepsy. Some people displayed behaviours that challenged others.

People’s experience of using this service:

Lucerne House was registered before Registering the Right Support (RRS) had been published. Nevertheless, we found the care service reflected the values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. ‘People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen’ – Registering the Right Support Policy.

¿ There were good recruitment procedures and enough staff to meet people’s individual needs. People told us they felt safe. Staff knew how to safeguard people from abuse and what they should do if they thought someone was at risk. Incidents and accidents were well managed.

¿ People’s medicines were managed safely and the registered manager worked with health professionals to make sure people were only prescribed medicines that were needed.

¿ People’s needs were effectively met because staff had the training and skills to fulfil their role. This included training to meet people’s complex needs in relation to epilepsy, diabetes and behaviours that challenged.

¿ Staff attended regular supervision meetings and received an annual appraisal of their performance.

¿ Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible. People were encouraged to be involved in decisions and choices when it was appropriate. Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) assessments were completed as required and in line with legal requirements. Staff had attended MCA and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training.

¿ People were treated with dignity and respect by kind and caring staff. Staff had a good understanding of the care and support needs of people and had developed positive relationships with them.

¿ People were supported to attend health appointments, such as the GP or dentist. If assessed as appropriate and in line with individual needs, appointments were held at Lucerne House.

¿ People told us they had enough to eat and drink and menus were varied and well balanced. People’s meals were served in a way that respected their specific needs and beliefs.

¿ People were supported to take part in a range of activities to meet their individual needs and wishes. Some attended college courses and day centres and others preferred to choose a daily plan of activities arranged with the support of staff. People also told us they enjoyed visiting their friends and inviting friends and their family members to their house. A social care professional told us, “In my experience (staff) have been very supportive of the relationships the people who live at Lucerne House have with their family members.”

¿ The environment was clean and well maintained. The provider had ensured safety checks had been carried out and all equipment had been serviced. Fire safety checks were all up to date.

Feedback was regularly sought from people, relatives and staff. People were encouraged to share their views on a daily basis.

¿ People and relatives were given information on how to make a complaint and said they would be comfortable raising a concern or complaint if they needed to.

Rating at last inspection:

This service met the characteristics of Good. More information is in the ‘Detailed Findings’ below.

Rating at the last inspection:

Good. The last inspection report was published on 27 April 20

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 March 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our Safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 March 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our Effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 March 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our Caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 March 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our Responsive findings below.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 March 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.