You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 April 2018

The inspection took place on 8 March 2018 and was an announced inspection. The service was last inspected on 29 July 2015, where we found the provider to be in breach of one regulation in relation to not protecting people who were unable to make decisions for themselves.

Wortley Lodge accommodates up to three adults with a learning disability and autistic spectrum disorder. The service is set in an adapted house providing accommodation to people over two floors. The ground floor communal areas comprise of an open plan kitchen and dining room and a living room. At the time of our inspection, three people were living at the service.

Wortley 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 this inspection.

The care service has been developed and designed 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.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

At the inspection on 8 March 2018, we found that the provider had made sufficient improvements and were no longer in breach of a legal requirement.

The provider maintained systems to safeguard people from harm and abuse. People told us they felt safe living at the service. Staff knew types and signs of abuse and how to report abuse and poor care. People’s risk assessments were specific to their needs. They provided sufficient information to staff on the risks associated to people’s health and care, and measures on how to reduce those risks. The provider had sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and recruited suitable staff to support people at risk. Staff followed appropriate infection control practices to avoid the spread of infection.

People told us their needs were met. Staff were appropriately inducted and received regular training and supervision to deliver effective care. People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met and told us they were happy with the food. Staff supported people in accessing healthcare services and followed up on healthcare professionals recommendations. People liked their bedrooms and the premise's adaptations met their individual needs. 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. People told us staff gave them choices and asked their permission before supporting them.

Staff were trained in equality and diversity and knew the importance of treating people equally, with dignity and respect. People told us staff were caring, friendly and listened to them. Staff supported people to remain independent by encouraging and assisting them to do things that they could.

People’s care plans, health action plans and hospital passports were regularly reviewed and gave information to staff on how to provide personalised care. Staff worked with people to plan their weekly activities and the weekly activity plan showed people participated in a range of activities. People told us they knew who to speak to if they were not happy about something but had never made a complaint. Staff recorded people’s end of life care wishes and preferences in their care plans.

The management conducted regular audits and monitoring checks to ensure people’s

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 17 April 2018

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe with staff and staff knew the signs of abuse and how to report concerns. People’s risk assessments were comprehensive and regularly reviewed.

Staff followed safe medicines management practices and people were happy with the support. The provider allocated sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and carried out appropriate recruitment checks before hiring staff.

The provider followed infection control practices, and necessary health and safety checks were in date. The registered manager shared learning from accidents and incidents during staff meetings and maintained clear accident and incident records.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 April 2018

The service was effective.

People's needs were assessed and they told us their needs were met. Staff received induction training and supervision to deliver effective care.

Staff were aware of people's individual dietary needs and supported them in maintaining nutritionally balanced diets. People were supported to access regular healthcare services.

Premises met people's individual mobility needs. Staff knew the importance of giving people choices and people told us their consent was sought.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 April 2018

The service was caring.

People told us staff were friendly and caring and listened to their needs. Each person had a keyworker and staff asked people’s views. People were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and were trained in equality and diversity. People were encouraged to remain as independent as they wished. Staff understood the importance of confidentiality and people’s personal information was stored securely.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 April 2018

The service was responsive.

Staff knew people’s likes and dislikes. People’s care plans were comprehensive, regularly reviewed and informed staff on how to provide personalised care. People had an individual health action plan and a hospital passport.

People were involved in a range of activities that they enjoyed. They knew how to raise concerns or make complaints.

Staff supported people with their religious and cultural needs. People’s end of life care wishes were recorded in their care plans.

Well-led

Good

Updated 17 April 2018

The service was well-led.

People, staff and healthcare professionals found the management approachable. People were happy living at the service and staff enjoyed working with the provider.

There were records of regular audits and checks in place to ensure people’s safety and quality of service. The provider asked people and staff’s views and opinions for service improvement.

The provider worked with the local authority and healthcare professionals to improve the quality of care delivery.