You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 September 2017

We conducted an inspection of Fradel Lodge on 27 June 2017. Fradel Lodge is a supported living service providing personal care and accommodation for adults with mental and/or physical health needs within the orthodox Jewish community. There were 21 people receiving personal care when we visited. At our last inspection on 19 and 24 May 2016 we found that the provider was in breach of regulations in relation to consent and notifications. At this inspection we found improvements had been made in these areas and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Mental capacity assessments were in place to demonstrate that where people could not consent to their care, decisions were made appropriately in their best interests. Care staff demonstrated knowledge of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Quality assurance systems were thorough. The manager completed various audits and took action to implement required changes as a result of the last Care Quality Commission inspection. We saw evidence that feedback was obtained from people using the service and the results of this was positive. Notifications were submitted to CQC as required.

Procedures were in place to protect people from abuse. Staff knew how to identify abuse and knew the correct procedures to follow if they suspected abuse had occurred. Safeguarding matters were reported to the CQC as required.

We saw evidence of logging of accidents and incidents and evidence of investigations and further analysis into the causes of accidents and incidents. We saw consequent further action was taken as a result to mitigate risk.

Staff had completed medicines administration training within the last year and were clear about their responsibilities.

Risk assessments and support plans contained clear information for staff. All records were reviewed every month or where the person’s care needs had changed.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s life histories and current circumstances and supported people to meet their individual needs in a caring way.

People using the service and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care and how their needs were met. People had care plans in place that reflected their assessed needs.

Recruitment procedures ensured that only staff who were suitable, worked within the service. There was an induction programme for new staff, which prepared them for their role. Staff were provided with appropriate training to help them carry out their duties. Staff received regular supervision. There were enough staff employed to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to maintain a balanced, nutritious diet. People were supported effectively with their health needs and to access a range of healthcare professionals.

People using the service and staff felt able to speak with the manager and provided feedback on the service. They knew how to make complaints and there was a complaints policy and procedure in place.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 13 September 2017

The service was safe.

The service had adequate systems for recording, storing and administering medicines safely.

The risks to people’s mental and physical health were identified and appropriate action was taken to manage these and keep people safe.

Procedures were in place to protect people from abuse. Staff knew how to identify abuse and knew the correct procedures to follow if they suspected abuse had occurred.

There were enough staff available to meet people's needs. We found that recruitment processes helped to ensure that staff were suitable to work at the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 September 2017

The service was effective.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Care records were signed by people using the service. We saw mental capacity assessments were in place to demonstrate whether people had the capacity to consent to decisions made and if not, decisions were made appropriately in their best interest. Care staff demonstrated a good knowledge of their responsibilities under the MCA.

People were supported by staff who had the appropriate skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff received an induction and regular supervision, annual appraisals and training to carry out their role.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and had access to community dietetic teams when needed. People were supported to maintain good health and were supported to access healthcare services and support when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 September 2017

The service was caring. People using the service were happy with the level of care given by staff.

People told us that care workers spoke to them and got to know them well.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected and care staff provided examples of how they did this. People’s cultural diversity was respected and celebrated.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 September 2017

The service was responsive. People’s needs were assessed before they began using the service and care was planned in response to these.

People were encouraged to be active and maintain their independence. Staff at the service encouraged people to take part in social events and arranged activities for them to participate in.

People told us they knew who to complain to and felt they would be listened to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 September 2017

The service was well-led. People told us the registered manager was approachable.

Quality assurance systems were thorough. The registered manager completed various audits, which identified concerns and action plans were devised as a result. Accidents and incidents were reported and investigated as required. Feedback was obtained from people using the service through residents meetings and where necessary, this was acted on.