You are here

Archived: Kingsmead Lodge

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 4 August 2014
Date of Publication: 4 September 2014
Inspection Report published 04 September 2014 PDF | 89.46 KB

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 4 August 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

People told us they were happy with the care and support provided. One person said, “I like it here”. Another said, “Everyone is nice to me”. One relative told us, “Kingsmead Lodge is a wonderful haven for our relative. The care is as good as you will get anywhere”. Another said, “They have done well with our relative. It’s such a relief to have such good care”. One relative told us, “The care is good but communication could be better”. This concern was brought to the manager’s attention.

We looked at three people's care records. They were comprehensive and personalised. They included information about their personal and social backgrounds, their relationship circle and their medical history which we noted was updated regularly. They also contained detailed assessments of their needs with guidance for staff to ensure that they received the care and support necessary to meet their needs and address their choices. For example the plans we saw all included photographs of people’s preferred night time positioning and in one person’s plan we noted in the section ‘how to communicate with me’, ‘show me things and give me a choice’. We saw that these plans were checked and updated regularly. In addition we saw that they were all signed as read and understood by the staff involved in giving the support. We looked at the daily records and saw that people received the care and support as described in their plans. This meant that people’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans.

Risk assessments had also been completed on all identified risks with guidance for staff about the action needed to minimise them while maintaining people’s safety and welfare. These included risk assessments for choking, moving and handling, skin integrity and nutrition. For example the action plan for a person who spent most of their time in bed and had been assessed as at high risk of developing pressure sores included the use and regular check of an air mattress, frequent turning and use of barrier creams. We saw from the records in their room that this had been carried out in line with their plan. We saw evidence that, with the exception of the restraint risk assessment for the use of lap belts on wheel chairs, all assessments were reviewed and updated monthly. We pointed out to the manager the absence of a place on this risk assessment to record when it had been reviewed to ensure it was still in line with the individual's needs. They agreed to amend it after our inspection, in order to provide a formal record of its regular review.

We saw that people with epilepsy had their seizure patterns monitored and the nurse in charge told us that staff routinely checked everybody every 15 minutes throughout the night. Staff we spoke with said they had attended epilepsy training in the last year and were confident they would respond appropriately when required.

The manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).They were aware of their need to consider depriving someone of their liberty only when they lacked the capacity to make a decision about the proposed arrangement, when it was in their best interest and when there was no less restrictive way of keeping them safe. However they told us that no one was subject to DoLS authorisation at the time of our inspection.

We saw that a physiotherapist, their technician and a speech and language therapist were an integral part of the clinical team carrying out assessments and providing therapy on site throughout the week. People also had regular appointments with health professionals including GPs, one of whom attended weekly, and a dentist. There was also regular input from a psychologist and people were supported to attend appointments with other health care professionals when required. This ensured that staff received the appropriate advice to help maintain people’s physical and psyc