You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 August 2019

About the service

The Lodge can accommodate up to 44 people and there were 39 people using the service on the days of our inspection. The service comprises of two houses on one site and supports older people in the larger house and up to five people with mental health needs in the Coach House.

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

At this inspection, we found risk assessments for the environment had been reviewed and actions taken to improve the safety of the service. New window locks had been installed to all upstairs windows which allowed opening for ventilation, but the opening was restricted to prevent people from falling through the gap. The hot water temperate were recorded frequently to a set monitoring plan and any issues identified were resolved.

At this inspection, we found the managerial oversight of the service had improved and the quality assurance checks in place enabled the registered manager and senior staff to pro-actively respond to identified events.

The registered manager and senior staff carried out an assessment of people’s needs before they commenced using the service. The information recorded identified to some degree how the support was to be provided in line with the person’s preferences and choices. However, the information, although known by the staff, was not always recorded or lacked detail regarding what may upset people and the actions people were to take. The service had a complaints process and we saw that complaints were recorded and responded to in line with the recorded procedure.

Each person had a care plan containing a risk assessment. Staff were aware of people’s needs and how to support them. This included recorded information in the care plans regarding people’s prescribed medicines and staff had received training in the administration of medicines. Staff were recruited through a robust recruiting procedure. People informed us that there were sufficient members of staff on duty at all times to support them.

The staff were provided with supervision and on-going support including training. Staff recorded when necessary how they had supported people to have enough to eat and drink of their choice. People’s care plans recorded information about support provided by other professionals and when appointments had been made for them by the staff with their permission.

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.

People told us that their personal care and support was provided in a way which maintained their privacy and dignity. People spoke positively about the way staff treated them and reported that they received appropriate care. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of the people they cared for and supported, such as people with a diagnosis of diabetes or dementia.

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

Rating at last inspection (and update)

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 13 July 2018) and there was a breach of Regulation 17: Good Governance of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

Although the rating for the key question for responsive has deteriorated from good to requires improvement. The key questions for safe and well-led have improved to good.

The overall rating for the service has changed from Requires Improvement to Good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor i

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 August 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 August 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 August 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 14 August 2019

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 August 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.