Gordon Lodge Rest Home

Updated 11 July 2018

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 29 May 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by two inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

We used information the provider sent to us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give us some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the information in the PIR along with other information we held about the service. We looked at previous reports and notifications received by the Care Quality Commission. Notifications are information we receive when a significant event happens, like a death or a serious injury.

We looked around all areas of the service. We spoke with 12 people and four relatives. We also spoke with six members of staff, the manager and the registered manager. Some people were not able to explain their experiences of living at the service because of their health conditions so we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We observed how staff engaged with people and their relatives. We looked at how people were supported with their daily routines and assessed if people’s needs were being met. We reviewed four care plans and looked at a range of other records including three staff files, safety checks and records about how the quality of service was managed.

Updated 11 July 2018

We inspected Gordon Lodge Rest Home on 29 May 2018 and the inspection was unannounced.

At the last inspection in March 2017 we found two breaches in Regulation. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions of Effective and Well-Led to at least good. At this inspection improvements had been made and the breaches in Regulation had been met. Staff now met with a manager for regular one to one supervision to aid their personal development. Checks and audits were in place and records were accurate and complete.

Gordon Lodge Rest Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service is in a quiet residential area and provides accommodation, care and support for up to 33 older people. There were 24 people living there when we visited.

The provider was also the registered manager and was supported in the day to day running of the service by a manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC 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.

People said they felt safe living at the service. They were protected from the risks of abuse, discrimination and avoidable harm by staff who had been trained about keeping people safe. Risks to people were assessed, identified, managed and reviewed. People received their medicines safely and on time. Accidents and incidents were monitored and reviewed.

People were supported by a regular staff team who had been safely recruited. Staff knew people, their needs and preferences well and were trained and knowledgeable.

The service was clean and tidy and regular checks were made to make sure the environment and any equipment was safe and well maintained.

People were involved in planning their care and their physical, mental health and social care needs were assessed before they moved to the service to make sure that staff would be able to provide the right support. People were offered the support of an advocate if they required additional support to help them make decisions about their care.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and encouraged to drink plenty. Staff worked with health care professionals to make sure people stayed as healthy as possible. They followed any guidance given to them.

People had access to communal areas of the service and to the garden. They could choose if they wanted to spend time with others or if they wanted to be alone. Their choices were respected by staff. 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.

People said the staff were kind and caring. Staff knew people well and spoke with them in a compassionate way. Staff treated each other kindly and supported each other.

People’s privacy and dignity were promoted and respected by staff. Records were stored securely to protect people’s confidentiality. People were supported to remain as independent as possible. People’s friends and relatives were able to visit when they wanted to and were made to feel welcome.

Care plans gave staff the guidance they needed to provide people with the right support in the way they preferred. People were encouraged to stay active and to take part in organised activities. People and their relatives knew how to complain and told us they had no complaints. They were confident the registered manager would handle any concerns appropriately.

People’s preferences for their end of life care were discussed and recorded to make sure staff could follow their wishes. Staff supported people’s relatives and each other in a caring and compassionate way at this time.

People, their relatives and staff felt the service was well-led and were involved in making changes at the service. The culture was one of openness and inclusivity. The leadership of the service was visible. The registered manager understood their responsibilities and notified CQC according to guidelines. Checks and audits were completed to monitor the quality of service and, when needed, action was taken to drive improvements. The staff team worked with health care professionals to promote joined up care.