You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 February 2018

Camelot Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during the inspection. Camelot Lodge also oversees a small supported living service. Although registered to provide personal care none of those people currently in supported living require the regulated activity at this time, this was therefore not looked at during the inspection.

Camelot Lodge provides support to up to 9 people with long term mental health needs. At the time of the inspection the service was full. The service is also responsible for a small community support service for three people none of whom were in receipt of the regulated activity personal care so this part of the service was not inspected on this occasion.

The provider is actively involved in the running of the service and a registered manager is in place for the day to day running of the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the agency. 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 agency is run.

We last inspected the service in December 2016 and found two breaches of regulation and rated the service as requiring improvement. The identified breaches related to shortfalls in the checks made during the recruitment of staff, and also identified that existing quality assurance checks were not being conducted robustly to picked up omissions in recording. Following the inspection we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions Safe and Well-Led to at least Good. At this inspection quality assurance checks had improved and improvements made to records and recruitment records to show these had been carried out appropriately.

People showed that they were comfortable in each other’s company and with staff; they said they felt safe living in the service and liked the staff working with them. Staff demonstrated a kind and respectful attitude towards people. Mental health professionals spoke positively about this service and the professional and caring attitudes of staff.

People lived in a safe, clean environment with all safety checks and tests routinely completed. There were enough skilled staff to support people and this was kept under review if circumstances changed. New staff were inducted appropriately into their role, they said that they felt well supported and listened to and that there was a good sense of team work. They had opportunities to meet regularly with their manager individually and within staff meetings. The registered manager and staff used handovers and email circulation to ensure effective communication about people's needs and any changes.

People understood they could report concerns and staff were trained to understand how to support those people with diverse needs. Complaints information was displayed. People knew they could raise concerns at individual meetings or in house meetings if they chose. Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from harm.

People were supported to be independent. Risks were well managed: staff took appropriate action and any learning was incorporated into practice or risk assessments. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. People’s legal status meant that they were subject to some restrictions on their movement outside the service but a culture of least restrictive practice and positive risk taking ensured this was managed in a way that was acceptable to them and was reviewed with them regularly.

People were supported to keep healthy. People had regular health checks and access to healthcare professionals. Changes

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 February 2018

The service was safe

Appropriate checks were made of new staff to ensure suitability. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and this was kept under review. Medicines were managed well.

Risks were assessed and measures implemented to keep people safe. Accidents and incidents were analysed and any learning from these incorporated into plans and guidance. Staff understood safeguarding, diversity and equality responsibilities

The premises and equipment was well maintained.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 February 2018

The service was effective

People were assessed prior to admission to ensure needs could be met. Staff were inducted into their roles and completed a programme of training. Staff felt well supported, received regular supervision and annual appraisal of their performance.

People made decisions about their care and treatment. Staff had an understanding of and been trained in mental capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Staff supported people to access healthcare when they needed it and for routine checks. People made drinks and snacks for themselves and staff supported them with eating a healthy diet.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 February 2018

The service was caring

Staff showed a warm, respectful attitude to people and protected people’s dignity. People respected each other’s privacy as did staff.

Staff were mindful of people’s confidentiality and who information was shared with; records were kept secure. Relatives were made welcome.

People were supported to develop and maintain their independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 February 2018

The service was responsive

A comprehensive assessment of prospective residents was undertaken and transition arrangements planned. People were actively involved in the development and review of their care plans.

People made choices about the activities they wanted to do and took part in education or work opportunities. People understood how to raise issues that concerned them with staff.

People were supported to make decisions about advanced end of life care plans if they wished.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 February 2018

The service was well led

The provider was a visible presence in the service. People and staff found the registered manager approachable and easy to talk with.

Quality assurance processes helped the registered manager ensure all areas of the service were running appropriately. People, relatives and professionals were asked for their feedback about the service.

The provider was involved in a range of groups that gave insight into emerging issues around mental health and areas of development.