You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

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 appro

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected from the risks of abuse, discrimination and avoidable harm and supported to stay safe.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on each shift and they had been recruited safely. They supported people to have their medicines safely and on time.

The service was clean and regular checks were competed to make sure they environment was safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was effective.

People’s health needs were assessed, monitored and reviewed by staff who were trained and knowledgeable in their roles.

People were encouraged to eat healthily and to stay as healthy as possible. Staff worked closely with health care professionals and followed any advice given.

People could choose whether to spend time in the communal areas, the garden or in their rooms and this was respected by staff.

People were encouraged to make decisions and choices about their daily life. Additional support from advocates was offered when people needed support to make decisions about their health care. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act and people were not restricted unlawfully.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was caring.

People and their relatives told us the staff were kind and caring. Staff had built strong relationships with people and knew them well.

People and their relatives were involved in planning and reviewing their care.

People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible and their privacy and dignity were promoted and respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was responsive.

People received care that was delivered in the way they preferred. Staff were responsive to people’s needs.

Staff supported people to stay busy and encouraged people to take part in regular activities.

People and their relatives said they did not have any complaints and felt confident the registered manager would take the appropriate action if they raised any concerns.

People discussed their end of life care with staff to make sure their wishes could be followed. Staff supported people, their relatives and each other at this time.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was well-led.

People, relatives and staff felt the service was well-led and that the culture was open and inclusive. The staff team worked closely with each other and in partnership with health care professionals.

The registered manager understood their regulatory responsibilities and had notified CQC in line with guidance.

Feedback on the quality of service was obtained and changes were made to make improvements. Regular checks and audits were completed to monitor the service.