• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Court Lodge

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Court Close, Lymington, Hampshire, SO41 8NQ (01590) 673956

Provided and run by:
Colten Care Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

27 July 2015

During a routine inspection

Court Lodge is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care for up to 43 older people, some of who may be living with dementia. On the day of our inspection 40 people were living at the home.

Accommodation at the home is provided over two floors, which can be accessed using passenger lifts. There is a large garden and patio area’s which provide a secure private leisure area for people living at the home.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a 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.

On the day of our inspection the registered manager was on leave. The home was being managed by the head of care who was supported by the provider’s quality assurance manager and operations manager.

Staff understood the needs of the people and care was provided with kindness and compassion. People, relatives and health care professionals told us they were very happy with the care and described the service as excellent.

People told us they felt safe and they enjoyed living at Court Lodge. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse and had a good understanding of what to do if they suspected any form of abuse occurring.

The home had a robust recruitment and selection process to ensure staff were recruited with the right skills, behaviours and experience to support the people who lived at the home.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. At the time of our inspection applications had been submitted by the managing authority (care home) to the supervisory body (local authority) and had yet to be authorised. The head of care understood when an application should be made and how to submit one. They were aware of a recent Supreme Court Judgement which widened and clarified the definition of a deprivation of liberty.

Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions the home was guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests.

People’s care plans and risk assessments were person centred. They were reviewed regularly to make sure they provided up to date and accurate information.

Staff were appropriately trained and skilled to ensure the care delivered to people was safe and effective. They all received a thorough induction when they started work at the home and fully understood their roles and responsibilities.

The registered manager or head of care assessed and monitored the quality of care consistently involving people, relatives and professionals. Care plans were reviewed regularly and people’s support was personalised and tailored to their individual needs.

People and relative’s told us they were asked for feedback and encouraged to voice their opinions about the quality of care provided.

People and relatives knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. The complaints procedure was displayed in the home. It included information about how to contact the ombudsman, if they were not satisfied with how the service responded to any complaint. There was also information about how to contact the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

28 May 2013

During a routine inspection

In this report the name of Ms Alison Fearnley appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

During our inspection on 11 September 2012 we judged that for those who needed extra support, this was not always managed appropriately. We also judged that people were at risk of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment as records of care did not always reflect their needs and support received. The provider sent us an action plan and at this inspection we found that improvements had been made.

During our visit we observed that call bells were answered swiftly and people we spoke with told us that these were answered usually within three to four minutes.

We asked people about the meals and we were told that the catering was very good. One visitor we spoke with said: 'My relative has some foods pureed, and this was presented in a way that was appetising and appealing'.

People we spoke with told us that staff treated them well and that they felt safe and secure in the home. One person said: "The nurses are always very gentle and caring when they help me wash and get dressed. I feel safe."

We looked at the complaints register and found that all complaints had been investigated and dealt with in a timely way. We looked at a sample of seven care plans. We found that they were accurate and fit for purpose.

11 September 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Dignity and Nutrition

People told us what it was like to live at this home and described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. They also told us about the quality and choice of food and drink available. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people living in care homes are treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs are met.

The inspection team was led by a Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspector joined by a practising professional.

We spoke with 14 people who were living at the home, three relatives and eight staff as part of our visit. We observed how people spent their time, the support they received from staff and whether they had positive outcomes.

We observed that staff interacted in a respectful manner and gave people time to express themselves. People told us that they were treated with respect and that the staff were kind and very helpful. One person told us that they were very settled and 'can't want for anything'. Another person said that they had moved to be close to their family and this had worked 'very well' for them. A relative commented that the staff were 'very good' at maintaining their relative's privacy. Another person said that they were asked how they would like to be called. Three people said they were happy for the staff to call them by their first name. A person told us that the staff 'do their very best' and would rate the home as 'excellent.'

People were highly complimentary about the meals and the food and drink choices that were available to them. One person said that they liked poached eggs and they often requested this at tea times. Another person said the chef made' beautiful sea bream'.

Relatives told us that the staff communicated well with them and they had involved them in their relative's care and they were kept informed of changes in their condition.

People said that they felt safe living at the home. They wanted to stress that they did not have any concerns. They knew how to report any concerns and they told us that they were confident that any concerns would be addressed.

15 December 2011

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with said they felt they were well treated by staff. People said staff maintained their dignity and asked them how they wanted their care to be provided. We were told that staff were always respectful to people.

People said they received the care they needed in the way that they wanted it to be provided. People told us staff responded promptly when they used their call bells and helped them to resolve any problems they had.

People we spoke with said they felt safe in the home and were confident that staff would respond appropriately to any concerns they raised.

People told us there were regular residents' meeting held and said they were able to provide feedback about the quality of the service they received.