Archived: Conifer Lodge

We previously inspected Conifer Lodge in April 2015, at which time the service was compliant with all regulatory standards and was rated Good. At this inspection the service remained Good.

Conifer Lodge is a single-story residential home in South Shields. It is registered to provide accommodation for up to 16 people who have personal care and nursing needs. There were 14 people living at Conifer Lodge at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. The registered manager was on annual leave at the time of the inspection but there was a deputy manager in place.

People who used the service and their relatives told us staff helped keep them safe. Staff we spoke with had received safeguarding training and knew what to do should they have concerns about people's safety.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs in a safe manner and to maintain the premises. The building was clean throughout and undergoing refurbishment in communal areas. Since our last inspection a new communal/training kitchen had been installed.

There were effective pre-employment checks of staff in place, including Disclosure and Barring Service checks, references and identity checks. Nursing staff had their Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) status checked regularly.

A treatment room had been refurbished and the storage, administration and disposal of medicines was safe and in line with guidance issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Risk assessments with person-centred information were in place to manage the risks people faced. These were reviewed regularly and staff demonstrated a good awareness of them.

There was regular liaison with external healthcare professionals to ensure people received the care they needed.

Staff were trained in a range of core areas such as safeguarding, health and safety, moving and handling, fire safety, nutrition and dignity. Training needs were well planned and managed.

Staff received regular supervision and appraisal support from managerial and senior staff, as well as regular team meetings.

Feedback regarding meals was generally positive and we saw people who required specialised diets had their needs met.

Group activities included games, arts and crafts, outings to museums and the theatre, day trips to the coast, as well as holidays. Weekly activities were planned in consultation with people who used the service and the registered manager had recently recruited an activities co-ordinator.

The registered manager was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the MCA and best interest decision making, when people were unable to make decisions themselves. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The atmosphere at the home was relaxed and welcoming. People who used the service, relatives and external stakeholders told us staff were friendly, patient and compassionate.

Person-centred care plans were in place and people and their relatives were involved in the review of care plans.

The service maintained good community links, with people who used the service feeling a part of the wider community in which they lived.

Staff, people who used the service, relatives and external professionals were generally positive about the registered manager and staff at all levels. The culture was one in which people’s changing needs could be met and their preferences respected.

Quality assurance and auditing procedures were in place to ensure the registered manager and others identified where practice improvements could be made.

We saw people living in the service responding positively to the staff and where they were becoming agitated or distressed the staff supported them professionally and appropriately. People told us that they were having their needs met. We observed staff assisting the people with their usual daily activities; including watching television or preparing to go out. Staff responded to peoples needs in a professional and pleasant way, and they were clear about how the individual was to be supported.

We found the service had effective recruitment and selection processes for the staff they employed. We looked at the records three people and found that there were robust systems for making sure only appropriate staff were appointed.

The company had systems for auditing and monitoring the service, including audits for care plans, catering and the environment, and views were sought from people using the service. These audits were carried out by both the service managers and the information reviewed centrally by the organisation.