We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Lodge 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 The Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
The Lodge is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to six people with different health and care needs, including learning disabilities and/or autism, at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to six people in a single-floor adapted building within the residential neighbourhood of Swallownest outside of Sheffield.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People appeared relaxed in the presence of staff supporting them and family members felt people were safe and well looked after living at The Lodge. Family members praised the staff and quality of the service. Staff knew people well and treated them with dignity, kindness and respect for their individuality, preferences, abilities and needs. Staff used person-centred approaches to support people effectively, using individualised ways to communicate and engage with people positively.
We made a recommendation regarding the service’s awareness of Registering the Right Support, as well as the continued development of transitions and planning in line with Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) principles, which the provider was supporting. However, we found examples of the principles of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance being applied. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them. Staff did not wear uniforms or anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills.
The service’s person-centred, inclusive culture and warm, family-like atmosphere were led by a long-standing well-respected registered manager. They and the staff team worked effectively with a variety of other health and social care professionals to achieve positive outcomes for people. People, family members, staff and professionals were involved in the development of the service. The Lodge was well integrated into the local community through regular neighbourhood events.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff generally supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The service was continuously looking to reduce restrictions present in people’s support. We discussed with the registered manager further ways to develop this.
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 May 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
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, the service was rated good and at this inspection we found the service remains good.
People were safe because staff understood the risks involved in their care and took action to minimise these risks. There was sufficient staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. The provider carried out appropriate pre-employment checks before staff started work.
Medicines were managed safely. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed to ensure any measures that could prevent a recurrence had been implemented. People were protected against the risk of infection because the home was clean and hygienic.
People's care was provided by regular staff who knew their needs well and provided support in a consistent way. Staff had access to the induction, training and support they needed to do their jobs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.
People experienced a good quality of life because staff received training that gave them the right skills and knowledge to meet their needs. People were supported and assisted with their daily routines, shopping and accessing places of their choice in the community.
People received appropriate support to maintain a healthy diet and be able to choose and help prepare meals they preferred. People had access to a range of health care professionals, when they needed them.
Staff attended regular supervision meetings and told us they were very well supported by the management of the home. Staff meetings were used to ensure that staff were kept up to date on the running of the home and to hear their views on day to day issues.
The provider had good systems to monitor the management and quality of the home and through regular internal monitoring the registered manager ensured that a range of audits were carried out to monitor the care and support provided. Where shortfalls had been identified they were addressed in a timely manner.
The Lodge provides accommodation and support for up to six people with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorders. On the day of the inspection six people were receiving care services from the provider. 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.
During our inspection we spoke with two people who used the service. We also spoke with four members of care staff, the registered manager and two nurses. During our visit to the service we looked at the care records for six people and looked at records that related to how the service was managed.
People who used this service were safe. The care staff knew how to identify if a person may be at risk of harm and the action to take if they had concerns about a person’s safety.
The care staff knew the people they were supporting and the choices they had made about their care and their lives. People who used the service, and those who were
important to them, were included in planning and agreeing to the care provided.
The decisions people made were respected. People were supported to maintain their independence and control over their lives. People received care from a team of staff who they knew and who knew them. People were treated with kindness and respect. People we spoke with told us, “Staff are nice and friendly, I like them a lot.”
The registered manager used safe recruitment systems to ensure that new staff were only employed if they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. 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 or to the local authority or CQC.
There were sufficient staff, with appropriate experience, training and skills to meet people’s needs. The service was well managed and took appropriate action if expected standards were not met. This ensured people received a safe service that promoted their rights and independence.
Staff were well supported through a system of induction, training, supervision, appraisal and professional development. There was a positive culture within the service which was demonstrated by the attitudes of staff when we spoke with them and their approach to supporting people to maintain their independence.
The service was well-led. There was a comprehensive, formal quality assurance process in place. This meant that all aspects of the service were formally monitored to
ensure good care was provided and planned improvements and changes could be implemented in a timely manner.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, speaking with the staff supporting them and looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
Staff were given guidance to ensure that they cared for people safely, and detailed risk assessments and records were in place to ensure people received the care and support they required. Equipment was fit for purpose and regularly checked and maintained. The provider clearly displayed a fire alarm procedure in the reception area.
Is the service effective?
People's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.
Care plans contained assessments of people's care and support needs. These assessments described the steps staff should take to ensure each person's needs were met. Evidence we checked showed that staff were following people's care plans and risk assessments.
Is the service caring?
We observed that staff interacted warmly and considerately with people, and took time to meet people's needs. The home displayed a code of respect in the reception area.
Is the service responsive?
Where the provider identified areas for improvement, these were implemented. Where people's needs changed, the way they were cared for was changed to meet their needs, and external healthcare professionals were consulted.
Is the service well-led?
There was a quality assurance system in place, where audits of all aspects of the service were carried out. Where action was required we saw it was implemented.
Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.
People who use the service 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 staff had received training in abuse awareness and protecting vulnerable adults in the previous year.
People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. One member of staff told us: 'I can't speak highly enough of the support I receive.'
People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.
People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the individual needs of people using the service and gave consistent accounts of how people were supported.
People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. The standard of cleanliness observed throughout the premises was good.
People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Each staff file contained evidence that the provider carried out background checks on staff before they commenced work.
There was an effective complaints system available. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately. Staff showed understanding of how to deal with people's complaints.
People conveyed to us that they were looked after very well in the home. They felt staff were helpful in ensuring their needs were met. One person appreciated the arrangements for his home visits. Another person indicated her appreciation of the support her parents received when they visited the service.
People conveyed to us that they felt safe in the home.
People we spoke with conveyed their appreciation of staff that worked with them. They felt staff were helpful in ensuring their needs were met. A person told us, 'Staff are all right. I do find the staff friendly.' People told us that staff helped them to complete surveys.