You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 22 May 2014
Date of Publication: 20 June 2014
Inspection Report published 20 June 2014 PDF | 83.12 KB

Overview

Inspection carried out on 22 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with said they felt safe and that they knew staff would not hurt them. Staffing levels were high so that there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Assessments of any potential risks to people had been carried out and actions put in place so that staff knew how to minimise and manage any risks.

Staff had undertaken training in protecting vulnerable adults from abuse. They showed us that they had learnt how to recognise if abuse was taking place, and that they knew to whom they would report any concerns. Telephone numbers for external agencies, such as the local authority’s safeguarding team, were available for staff to use should they have needed to. Staff were also aware of the provider’s whistleblowing policy, which was displayed on the board in the staff room.

Staff had undertaken training relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The manager had made applications to the local authority and we saw documents on file to show that a standard authorisation had been granted for one person. This meant that any restrictions to this person’s liberty had been agreed as being in their best interest. This showed that appropriate action had been taken to ensure people’s rights were protected.

Is the service effective?

One relative told us, “I think this is perfect for my [family member]. It’s a community for her and she’s happy here.” People said they were happy at Field Lodge, their needs were met by staff in the way they wanted them met and they liked the staff. Care plans gave staff good, detailed guidance about how each person preferred their care and support to be given.

Is the service caring?

On the day we inspected, a thank you card arrived in the post, from a person who had had a respite stay at the home. They wrote, “I can’t thank you enough, you are all so caring.”

We saw that people got on well with the staff and were comfortable with them. Staff had a friendly, caring attitude and showed that they respected the people who lived at Field Lodge. People told us that staff helped them to maintain their privacy and independence.

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs were assessed before they were admitted to the home, and a care plan developed to meet each person’s individual needs. The care plans were reviewed monthly, or more frequently if required, to make sure that the planned care and support was still meeting the person’s needs.

A number of activities and entertainments were organised, which people could join in if they wanted to, and people were supported to maintain contact with friends and relatives. People and their relatives were given opportunities to express their views about the running of the home.

Is the service well-led?

Field Lodge had only opened a few months before this inspection. The manager demonstrated that they were fully involved in all aspects of the service being provided to people. People told us they would be happy to speak with the manager or any of the staff if anything was not right.

The provider had a robust quality assurance system in place to make sure that the service provided by the staff was of a very high standard. A range of audits and action plans ensured that all aspects of the service were closely monitored.

Staff told us they liked working at Field Lodge. One member of staff told us, “I really love my job.” Those we spoke with praised the manager and senior staff, who they found to be very supportive.

We found that the provider was compliant with the regulations in all the areas we assessed. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.