We carried out a review of the data available to us about Autumn Lodge Residential Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Autumn Lodge Residential Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice
• The registered manager had registered for whole home testing to ensure people and staff were tested regularly, even if they showed no symptoms.
.
• Information and guidance was displayed at the entrance to the home, reminding people to maintain social distancing, maintain good hand hygiene and wear appropriate PPE. Sanitiser and PPE was also available throughout the home.
• All visitors had their temperature taken before entering the home. Anyone who refused, or who had a high temperature was asked to leave and not permitted to enter the home.
• Furniture in communal areas had been re-arranged to support social distancing.
Autumn Lodge Residential Home is a care home providing personal and nursing care to 34 people. At the time of the inspection 31 people resided in Autumn Lodge.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People told us that they were well cared for and looked after. Other health professionals were consulted in a timely way according to the needs of the individual. People were supported and cared for in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff were recruited safely and provided with training so that they could support people effectively and meet their needs. People received their medicines as required by trained competent staff.
People’s views and opinions were encouraged and listened to, so that they helped in driving up standards in the home.
Regular audits were in place to monitor safety and infection control within the home so that people lived in a safe environment.
The registered manager and providers were open and transparent and had met their legal obligations in respect of Care Quality Commission (CQC) requirements.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 23 August 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection, 31 July 2014 the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good and continued to meet all of the essential standards that we assessed.
There was a registered manager for the service at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 home operated within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We were provided with information in relation to capacity assessments and processes which needed to be in place to make decisions in a person’s best interest. 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.
Medication was administered safely by staff who had received the appropriate training. Medication records were accurate, medication audits and competency assessments were conducted on a monthly basis and annual medication reviews were conducted for all people who lived at the home.
All care files contained individual care plans and risk assessments. Care plans were person centred and contained relevant information in relation to a person’s wishes, choices and preferences.
Staff were supported in their roles and completed the necessary training as well as specialist training to effectively support the people in their care.
People were protected from abuse. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff were aware of how to report any concerns. All staff were able to explain their understanding of what ‘safeguarding’ meant and the actions they would take to safeguard people in their care.
Recruitment was safely and effectively managed. Suitable and sufficient references and disclosure and barring system checks (DBS) were in place for all staff. DBS checks ensure that staff who are employed to care and support people are suitable to work within a health and social care setting.
Staff supported people to make their own decisions with the food and drink during. People enjoyed the food provided and were encouraged to make choices about the different types of food and drink they wished to be purchased. Staff and kitchen staff were also familiar with specialist needs which needed to be supported.
A formal complaints process was in place at the home and people informed us that they knew how to make complaints if they ever needed to. At the time of the inspection there were no on-going complaints being investigated.
The home regularly held ‘resident’ meetings with the people living at the home at which they had the opportunity to discuss different aspects of their care, support and service delivery.
There was a variety of different audit tools and methods used to monitor and assess the quality of the home. These included internal and external audits as well as staff meetings, staff, resident and relative satisfaction surveys and compliance checks.
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service. The visit was unannounced.
We last inspected this service in June 2013. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all of the essential standards that we assessed.
Autumn Lodge Residential Home provides accommodation and support without nursing care for up to 34 people. All accommodation is in single bedrooms, many of which have en-suite facilities. The service is based in a residential area of Liverpool, close to transport routes.
At the time of our inspection the home had a Registered Manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider [owner].
We asked people who used this service and the staff who supported them for their views of the service and we observed how the support staff interacted with people. During our visit to the service, we spoke with the provider [owner] of the service and with the registered manager. We also looked at the care records for seven people and looked at records that related to how the service was managed.
On the day of our visit we saw people looked well cared for. We saw staff speaking calmly and respectfully to people who lived in the home. Staff demonstrated that they knew people’s individual characters, likes and dislikes.
The service had safe recruitment systems to ensure that new staff were only employed if they were suitable to work within the home. The staff employed by the service were aware of their responsibility to protect people from harm or abuse. They told us they would be confident reporting any concerns to a senior person in the service.
We spoke with one health care professional who visited the service during our inspection, the person we spoke with told us; “The staff make appropriate referrals and provide any information we need. If I leave instructions these are always followed. I have no concerns.”
There were sufficient staff, with appropriate experience, training and qualifications to meet people’s needs. The service was well managed, the registered manager told us they set high standards and took appropriate action if these were not met.
People were asked for their views about the home and these were used to improve the service. People had information about how to make a complaint or comment and these were acted upon. The provider and registered manager monitored the quality and safety of the care service in an effective way.
We found that peoples need were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. One person said, "The staff are lovely, everyone including the owners make this a lovely home."
People living at the home were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. All of the people we spoke with that lived at the home were aware how to raise concerns of abuse.
We looked at the systems in place to see how the quality of service was monitored. We found that good processes were in place, people and their relatives were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. There was evidence that learning from incidents had taken place and appropriate actions had been taken.
We found that personal and staff records were accurate, fit for purpose, held securely and remained confidential.
Comments from people who used the service included:
"I would rather be in bed".
"It is a very long day".
"I would rather have an extra hour in bed than go to bed early".
Each of the people using the service had a care plan. The care plans we looked at were up to date and contained relevant information about the needs of the person. We saw limited evidence that people had been consulted with about their care plan or that they were in agreement with it.
We found that staff were knowledgeable about the people they provided care and support to. However, at the time of our visit we found that appropriate care had not been provided to each of the people using the service and measures in place to minimise risks to people had not been followed.
The inspection team was led by a Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspector joined by an Expert by Experience who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.
We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.
During our visit we spoke with seven members of staff who held different roles within the home and with many of the people who lived there. We also spoke with five relatives.
Everyone we spoke with was complimentary about the home and the support they or their relative had received. People told us that they had always been treated with respect and dignity and that they had always received the support they had needed.