You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 October 2016

Linden House Care Home is a family run care home registered to provide accommodation for up to 23 people, including people living with a cognitive impairment. At the time of our inspection there were 23 people living in the home.

The inspection was unannounced and was carried out on 01September 2016 and 08 September 2016.

There was a registered manager in place at the home, who was also one of the providers. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run.

At our previous inspection in May 2015, we found that people were not always protected from risks associated with their care, medicines were not managed safely, hygiene standards were not always maintained and staff did not always follow legislation designed to protect people’s rights. The provider sent us an action plan detailing steps they would take to become compliant with the regulations.

At this inspection we found that action had been taken and improvements made in each of these areas.

People and their families told us they felt the home was well-led and were positive about the registered manager, who was also one of the providers. However, the registered manager had a ‘hands on’ approach to running the home, which prevented him from having effective overview and control of the quality of the service provided.

People and their families told us they felt the home was safe. Staff and the registered manager had received safeguarding training and were able to demonstrate an understanding of the providers’ safeguarding policy and explain the action they would take if they identified any concerns.

The risks relating to people’s health and welfare were assessed and these were recorded along with actions identified to reduce those risks in the least restrictive way. They were personalised and provided sufficient information to allow staff to protect people whilst promoting their independence.

People were supported by staff who had received an induction into the home and appropriate training, professional development and supervision to enable them to meet people’s individual needs. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and to enable them to engage with people in a relaxed and unhurried manner.

There were suitable systems in place to ensure the safe storage and administration of medicines. Medicines were administered by staff who had received appropriate training and assessments. Healthcare professionals, such as chiropodists, opticians, GPs and dentists were involved in people’s care when necessary.

Staff followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights and ensure decisions were the least restrictive and made in their best interests.

Staff developed caring and positive relationships with people, were sensitive to their individual choices and treated them with dignity and respect. People were encouraged to maintain relationships that were important to them.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. Mealtimes were a social event and staff supported people, when necessary, in a patient and friendly manner.

Staff were responsive to people’s communication styles and gave people information and choices in ways that they could understand. They were patient when engaging with people who could not communicate verbally and who used a variety of signs, sounds and body language to express themselves. Staff were able to understand people and respond to what was being said.

People and when appropriate their families were involved in discussions about their care planning, which reflected their assessed needs.

There was an opportunity for families to become involved in developing the service and they were encouraged to provide feedback on the service provided at resi

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 October 2016

The service was safe.

People and their families felt the home was safe and staff were aware of their responsibilities to safeguard people.

The registered manager had assessed individual risks to people and had taken action to minimise the likelihood of harm. People were support in a home that was clean and appropriately maintained

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and recruiting practices ensured that all appropriate checks had been completed.

People received their medicines at the right time and in the right way to meet their needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 October 2016

The service was effective.

Staff sought verbal consent from people before providing care and followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. They had access to health professionals and other specialists if they needed them.

Staff received an appropriate induction and on-going training to enable them to meet the needs of people using the service.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 October 2016

The service was caring.

Staff developed caring and positive relationships with people and treated them with dignity and respect.

Staff understood the importance of respecting people’s choices and their privacy.

People and when appropriate their families were involved in planning their care. People were encouraged to maintain friendships and important relationships.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 October 2016

The service was responsive.

Staff were responsive to people’s needs.

Care plans and activities were personalised and focused on individual needs and preferences.

The registered manager sought feedback from people using the service and had a process in place to deal with any complaints or concerns.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 19 October 2016

The service was not always well-led.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided. However, the registered manager’s ‘hands on’ management style prevented him from having an overview and control of the quality of the service provided and drive improvements.

The providers’ values were clear and understood by staff.

People, their families, health professionals and staff had the opportunity to become involved in developing the service.