Background to this inspection
Updated
19 June 2019
The inspection:
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team: The inspection was carried out by two adult social care inspectors.
Service and service type: Ambleside Lodge - Redhill is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. At the time of the inspection the registered manager was having a period of leave, the provider had arranged for another manager to oversee the home in their absence.
Notice of inspection: The inspection was carried out on 8 May 2019 and was unannounced.
What we did: Prior to the inspection we reviewed information that we had about the service including safeguarding records and statutory notifications. Notifications are information about specific important events the service is legally required to send to us. We did not request the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, tell us what the service does well and the improvements they planned to make. We reviewed this information during the inspection.
As part of our inspection we met with seven people, however only one person was able to tell us verbally about their experiences of life at the home. We therefore used our observations and discussions with staff. We also received feedback from two people’s relatives.
We also spoke with six members of staff, this included a senior manager, the manager and care staff. We reviewed two people’s care and support records. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service such as incident and accident records, meeting minutes, training records, policies, audits and complaints.
Updated
19 June 2019
About the service: Ambleside Lodge - Redhill is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to eight people with learning disabilities, including Autism. The home comprises of the main house and an internal self-contained flat. At the time of the inspection there were six people living in the main house and one person living in the flat.
The people we met had complex learning disabilities and were not able to fully tell us about their experiences of life at the home. We therefore used our observations of care and our discussions with relatives and staff to help form our judgements.
The care service worked in line with the values that underpin the 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.
People’s experience of using this service:
Staff knew how to recognise, and report abuse and were confident any concerns raised would be responded to by their managers. Relatives thought their family members were safe.
Risk assessments were in place to ensure people’s safety. Medicines were managed and administered safely. There were sufficient staff available to support people in their home and in the community.
There were a range of checks in place to ensure the safety of the home. Accidents and incidents were monitored to identify and address any patterns or themes. Learning from incidents was shared with the staff team. There were systems in place to manage infection control.
Staff received the right training and support to enable them to effectively support people. People’s complex needs were well planned for. Staff supported people to have good health care support from professionals.
Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions for themselves, their capacity to make these decisions had been considered. However, best interest decisions were not always documented by the home in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
People were involved in choosing what they wanted to eat and were supported to have a healthy and nutritious diet.
Staff were aware of people's routines and preferences, and they used this information to develop positive relationships and deliver person centred care. Relatives told us staff knew their family members well.
Staff described how they supported people by treating them with respect and dignity. Staff recognised when people were not happy and responded appropriately to support them.
Relatives told us staff were caring. Staff were understanding towards people and people were comfortable in the presence of staff.
People participated in chosen activities and accessed the local community, staff encouraged people to participate in things of interest to them.
Care plans were detailed, and relatives told us they felt involved in their family member’s care. Relatives felt able to raise concerns with the staff or the manager directly.
The service had links with the local community. Statutory notifications had not always been completed to inform us of events and incidents.
There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of care and support provided.
We have made a recommendation for the provider to revisit the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in relation to people making decisions.
Rating at last inspection: Good (report published December 2016).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk