Archived: Park Lodge Residential Care Home

Park Lodge Residential Care Home provides personal but not nursing care to up to 17 people aged 65 and over in one adapted building. There were 14 people living or staying there at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People felt safe. Risks were assessed and managed. Medicines were handled safely. The premises and equipment were clean and well maintained. There were enough staff to provide the care people needed. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.

People were happy with their care and looked comfortable and relaxed. They liked the food and said their dietary requirements and preferences were respected. People were supported to manage their health, including accessing healthcare services. Staff were well supported through training, supervision and day-to-day contact with their managers and colleagues.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff treated people kindly and respectfully and encouraged their independence. This was reflected in how staff interacted with people throughout the inspection. Staff knew people well and understood how they preferred to be supported. The registered manager fostered an inclusive culture, where people’s diverse characteristics, for example in relation to disability and sexual orientation, were respected and valued.

Care plans were personalised and up to date, reflecting each person’s individual needs and preferences as regards their care. Staff had a good understanding of people’s care needs. There were organised activities two days a week, and people followed their hobbies and pastimes. The service’s complaints process was readily available to people and their visitors.

People and staff remarked on the service’s “family feel”. Staff morale was good and there was a strong ethos of team work. The registered manager and staff were clear about their responsibilities. People and staff found the registered manager approachable and supportive. There were regular audits to provide oversight of the service and the quality of the care provided. People’s views about the service were welcomed and acted upon as appropriate.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 18 August 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At the last inspection in July 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People were protected from harm. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and understood what to do if they were concerned about someone. People’s risks were managed safely and there was a system in place to investigate any accidents or incidents. Recruitment processes were robust and medicines were managed safely.

Staff told us they were well supported, sufficiently trained and that they had enough time to support people effectively and responsively. People told us they enjoyed the meals and that there were plenty of choices. People’s healthcare needs were met and an individualised approach to activities meant people were leading happy and fulfilled lives.

Staff were caring and compassionate with a thoughtful approach and interest in the people they supported. People liked the staff they worked with and their dignity and independence was promoted. One person told us the home was “homely and comfortable” and another said, “I don’t love it but I like it.”

Staff had accurate guidance in place to enable them to help people in the way they wanted or needed to be supported.

There was a complaints system in place.

People, staff and relatives feedback was sought and this led to changes to improve people’s experiences. There were effective quality assurance mechanisms in place.

There were 17 people living in the home on the day of our unannounced inspection and we spoke with seven of them. The Registered Manager was available throughout the inspection.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found.

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

Is the service safe?

Care was planned to meet people's needs. Where a need was identified a plan was in place to meet this need. For example, one person had recently come to stay at the home for respite care. We saw that their care plan identified that they had a pressure sore. There was a clear plan in place to manage this, such as regular visits from the district nurse, pressure relieving equipment and repositioning.

One person was recorded to sometimes become aggressive to staff and people living in the home. We saw that the person's care plan contained guidance that staff should take should this happen. There were behaviour charts in place to identify potential triggers for the behaviour. There was also a risk assessment in place to ensure the safety and welfare of the person and others.

People were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. We spoke with seven people. One person told us, "The home and my bedroom are kept clean." Another person said, "It is very clean and tidy."

People were supported by staff who were able to perform their role. We looked at the staff training matrix and this showed that all staff who worked at Park Lodge Residential Home had completed training about safeguarding vulnerable adults. We spoke with staff who

understood what safeguarding was and what they would do if they suspected someone was being abused. All of the staff we spoke with could name types of abuse a person could be subjected to, and said they would report any suspicions to the manager or the local authority.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs) which applies to care homes. One application had been submitted and authorised by the relevant Supervisory Body. We noted that relevant staff understood how an application should be made.

Is the service caring?

People were treated with consideration and respect and their privacy was maintained. We spoke with seven people who confirmed this. One person told us, "They are all so good to me." Another person said, "They are wonderful.'

Staff communicated with people in a sensitive and considerate manner. For example, we saw a member of staff go outside for a walk with one person who was becoming unsettled. We observed another member of staff during the lunchtime service offer a person an additional dessert. We saw that bedroom and bathroom doors were kept closed when people were being supported with personal care and staff knocked on doors before entering.

Is the service responsive?

People accessed the services of healthcare professionals as required. One person told us, "If I am not feeling well they get the doctor for me.' Records of visits from healthcare professionals were kept. For example, we found that visits from chiropodists, district nurses, opticians, chiropodists and GPs were documented.

Is the service effective?

Peoples' needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered to meet their needs. For example, we looked at the accident records for people living in the home. We found that where one person had fallen several times during the month, the registered manager

had contacted the person's GP for further advice. One person told us, "The home meets my needs'.

Is the service well led?

The provider undertook a variety of audits to check the quality of the service. For example, we looked at audit reports relating to care plans, medication, health and safety and accidents. We found that actions had been taken as a result of this monitoring. For example, a recent care plan audit resulted in a change to one person's risk assessment.

People were able to comment on the service provided. People told us that they had recently attended a resident meeting which included topics such as the garden, activities and food.

One person we talked with told us that they were, 'Well looked after' and there were, 'No problems' with the support they received.

We found shortfalls in the planning of the care or support people needed.

People's health, safety and welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment, or when they moved between different services. This was because the provider worked in co-operation with others.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.

People were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not always maintained.

We spent time chatting with people about what it was like to live at Park Lodge either in the dining room during lunch or in the privacy of their own rooms. Everyone was very positive about the home. They told us that the staff were always kind and helpful and that they felt involved in the home. There was much discussion at the dining table about the forthcoming arrival of the new cook and how the people living in the home were planning to 'train' them to cook how they wanted.

When we spoke to people who lived in the home about the care they needed, they told us that the staff knew how to care for them and they felt safe in their care. One person told us "I find the staff very good" Another person said "I would still prefer to be in my own home but if I have to be anywhere I think this is one of the better places to be!".

The information we found in the staff files showed that appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work and that there were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.