You are here

Bartholamew Lodge Nursing Home Limited Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 8 October 2013
Date of Publication: 5 November 2013
Inspection Report published 05 November 2013 PDF

People should be cared for in safe and accessible surroundings that support their health and welfare (outcome 10)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are in safe, accessible surroundings that promote their wellbeing.

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 8 October 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and reviewed information sent to us by other authorities.

Our judgement

People who use the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

Reasons for our judgement

Since our previous inspection of November 2012 refurbishment work of the premises had been completed. All of the people who lived there, staff, and relatives were complimentary about the work that had been undertaken. They used words that included, “clean”, “bright”, “spacious” and, “homely” to describe the premises.

We saw certificates to confirm that assessments had been undertaken by environmental health and infection prevention departments. Those assessments had been undertaken within the last twelve months and high scores had been awarded by both departments. This meant that systems were effective regarding food hygiene and infection prevention which reduced risks to people’s health and wellbeing.

We saw that there were no longer any shared bedrooms in use at the home. All 30 bedrooms were single occupancy. All but four bedrooms had been provided with en-suite facilities. We looked at five bedrooms and saw that people had brought items into their bedrooms including, pictures and ornaments. All people we spoke with told us that they liked their bedrooms. One person said, "It is great I really like my bedroom. When my family come we all go in there and spend time together". This meant that the bedrooms provided met people’s personal preferences and privacy needs.

We observed that there were three lounge come dining rooms. This gave people a choice of where they wanted to spend their time. We saw that the lounge areas were comfortable and homely. The gardens were adequately maintained and could be easily assessed by people who had mobility restrictions.

We saw that equipment was available to promote the independence and safety of people who lived there. Bathing facilities were provided that were accessible to people who had mobility difficulties. A high number of people who lived there needed staff to move them using a hoist. We saw that hoists were regularly checked and serviced by an engineer to ensure they were safe to use. All staff spoken with told us they had received training in moving and handling and how to use the hoists so that they could move people safely.

When we looked at parts of the premises we observed that there were no handrails provided in en-suite rooms. The manager told us that the need for handrails was assessed for each person. The registered provider told us that they would look into the lack of handrails and ensure that they were installed.

We randomly checked certificates to ensure that equipment was safe and in good working order. In general the certificates that we saw confirmed that equipment was safe. However, issues had been raised about the cooker. The registered provider told us that the gas engineer had confirmed that as regulations had changed an additional fail safe devise for the pilot light was required. They confirmed that the engineer had told them that the cooker could be used although they were requesting quotes to purchase a new cooker.