Archived: The Lilacs Residential Home

The Lilacs Residential Home is a residential care home providing personal care without nursing for up to 17 people some of whom maybe living with dementia. At the time of inspection 17 people were using the service. The service is set over two floors in a residential area.

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

One person said, “It is all very good here, the staff work very hard.” A relative told us, “[person name] is happy here.”

We have made a recommendation about the quality assurance systems.

Quality assurance needed to be robust and issues identified dealt with in a timely way to ensure people continued to have the best outcomes.

Care and treatment were planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. There were systems in place to minimise the risk of infection and to learn lessons from accidents and incidents. Medicine was managed safely. People were cared for and supported by staff who had received the appropriate training.

The registered manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. 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 support this practice.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to ensure they maintained a balanced diet and referrals to other health professionals were made when required. The environment needed redecoration, the provider was aware of this. People had access to other health care professionals such as GPs and district nurses.

Staff cared for people in an empathetic and kind manner. Staff had a good understanding of people’s preferences of care. Staff worked to promote people’s independence through encouraging and supporting people to make informed choices.

People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis. People were supported to follow their interests and participate in social activities. The registered manager responded to complaints received in a timely manner. People were supported at the end of their life.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good. (last report published 11 May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor information and intelligence we receive about the service to ensure good quality is provided to people. We will return to re-inspect in line with our inspection timescales for Requires Improvement services.

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

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

The service was not safe. The service’s recruitment process ensured that appropriate checks were carried out before staff commenced employment. However it was noted that the service needed to review the staff records on regular a basis, as we found folders that contained information that no longer up to date. There were sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of people and keep them safe from potential harm or abuse. People’s health and wellbeing needs were assessed and reviewed to minimise risk to people’s health. Medication was well managed and people received they medication in a timely manner.

The service was effective. People were cared for and supported by staff who had received appropriate training to meet their needs. The registered manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were supported to eat and drink enough to ensure they maintained a balanced diet and referrals to healthcare professionals were made when required.

The service was caring. Staff cared for people in an empathetic and kind manner. Staff had a good understanding of people’s preferences of care. Staff always worked hard to promote people’s independence through encouraging and supporting people to make informed decisions.

The service was responsive. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis and when there was a change in care needs. People were supported to follow their interests and participate in social activities. The service responded to complaints received in a timely manner.

The service was well-led. Staff, people and their relatives spoke very highly of the registered manager and the provider who they informed us to be supportive and worked hard to provide an exceptional service. The service had systems in place to monitor and provide good care and these were reviewed on a regular basis. The registered manager acknowledged that some of the systems and processes needed to be improved; notable with staff’s personal folders and some of the documentation was no longer up to date.

People told us they felt safe. The provider had dealt with safeguarding issues appropriately but had not always recorded them fully. Medicine storage had improved and the temperature of medicine storage was now recorded. Staff had been safely recruited. Training had improved and most staff had received updates in core subjects in the past 12 months. Seven of the home's eight staff had attained a national vocational qualification in care at level 2 or above. Supervision records had improved and staff told us that they were well supported to do their work. Records had improved and the care plans now included all aspects of individual's care needs.

Our visit showed that appropriate arrangements were in place for people to have their privacy, dignity and independence respected. We found that people who use the service received safe and appropriate care that met their needs. In addition we found that there were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. Records also showed that staff received regular supervision and an annual appraisal.

We found that further improvements were required by the provider to ensure that appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe storage and recording of medicines. Improvements were also required for staff to receive training and/or refresher training in core subject areas. Our visit also highlighted that improvements were required to ensure that an accurate record for each person living at the home was in place.