We carried out a review of the data available to us about Jordan Lodge on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Jordan Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
Jordan Lodge is a residential care home that was providing personal care for up to 14 people living with long term mental health needs. There were seven people using the service at the time of our visit.
People's experience of using this service
People told us they were happy living at Jordan Lodge. They said they had experienced a more positive approach to their care and support over the last year in the home. People were kept as safe as possible by the staff who knew them well and by effective risk assessment and care planning processes.
Staff said they were proud to be working at the service and enjoyed their jobs.
People, staff and health and social care professionals said the managers and the staff team were approachable and supportive. There were enough staff to meet people's needs. There was a robust recruitment process so the provider knew they only employed suitable staff.
The provider had systems in place to keep people safe from identified risks. Staff knew to report any concerns that arose. Risks were managed to keep people as safe as possible. Staff received the training they required so they had the knowledge and skills to do their job and meet people's needs.
Staff gave people their prescribed medicines safely. They followed good practice guidelines to help prevent the spread of infection. People had access to the healthcare services they required.
People told us they enjoyed their meals. There was a variety of healthy meals based on people's choices and nutritional needs.
People were encouraged to make choices in all aspects of their lives. Staff knew each person well, including their likes and dislikes and their preferences about how they wanted staff to care for them.
Staff respected people's privacy and dignity and encouraged people to be as independent as possible.
People told us they knew how to complain and were confident that the registered manager would resolve their complaints.
There were effective quality monitoring processes in place including seeking the views and feedback of people who used the service and their relatives.
We found the service met the characteristics of a "Good" rating in all areas
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated as Requires Improvement [report published on 16 June 2018].
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The rating has improved to Good overall.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
Jordan Lodge provides care and support for up to 16 adults. Some of the people were living with the dual diagnosis of substance misuse and long term mental health needs. There were 11 people living at the service when we inspected it.
Jordan Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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 service is run.
Our inspection of the home’s environment identified the need for redecoration and refurbishment in a number of different areas of the home because of the potential for infection and the potential risk to people and to their mental well-being. The provider told us they had identified the need for significant refurbishment of the home and had implemented a plan to carry out appropriate works designed to address these needs. We saw evidence of the work already started in the home. A number of improvements were noted. The registered manager and the regional manager told us the plan was to complete the works before the end of the year.
People who used the service were safe. The home’s equipment was well maintained. Staff understood the importance of people’s safety and knew how to report any concerns they may have. Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing had been assessed and plans were in place which instructed staff how to minimise any identified risks to keep people safe from harm or injury. The provider ensured these were kept up to date so that staff had access to the latest information about how to minimise identified risks. The premises and equipment were regularly serviced and checked to ensure these did not pose unnecessary risks to people. Staff were well informed about how to safeguard people from abuse and knew what actions to take if they had concerns.
There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their individual needs. The provider had a safe recruitment process to ensure they employed staff who had the right skills and experience and as far as possible were suited to supporting the people who used the service.
People received their medicines as prescribed. The provider had relevant protocols for the safe management of people's medicines.
Staff had the relevant skills to help meet people's needs. They had access to effective training that equipped them with the skills they required to look after people. They had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They supported people in accordance with the relevant legislation and guidance.
People had access to a variety of healthy and well balanced meals. Staff provided appropriate support to people so they had timely access to health care services.
Staff supported people in a kind and compassionate manner. They treated people with dignity and respect. They were knowledgeable about the needs of the people they supported and ensured that wherever possible people or their relatives were involved in decisions about their care. Relatives and health and social care professionals told us they were always made to feel welcome when they visited the home. We have made a recommendation about involving people in decisions about their care.
People's care plans reflected their choices, their individual needs and preferences. Their care was provided in a person centred manner. They had access to social activities of their choice. The provider encouraged feedback from people using the service and their relatives. There was an appropriate complaints procedure in place that people knew about and felt confident that the provider would respond appropriately to any concerns they raised.
Staff felt they were well supported. There was a shared ethos of providing person-centred care. The registered manager supported staff to meet the standards expected of them which enabled them to deliver a good standard of care.
The provider did not have quality assurance systems in place that effectively identified problems and issues with the service. Where problems were identified they were not always addressed promptly. Issues to with the focus of the service in terms of the target client group need clarifying.
During this inspection, we identified breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report. Full information about CQC's regulatory response to any concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.
At the last inspection in November 2014, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
The service demonstrated they continued to meet the regulations and fundamental standards.
People told us they liked staying at Jordan Lodge and said the staff who supported them were respectful towards them. There was a relaxed atmosphere when we visited.
Staff told us that the service had improved in recent months with new senior management in post and an increased focus on recovery, supporting people to become more independent.
People were supported to have their health needs met. Staff worked with the person to access the GP and other local health services as appropriate to help make sure their individual health needs were met. We saw that people’s prescribed medicines were being stored securely and managed safely.
There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm and staff were aware of safeguarding procedures. Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work.
Staff received training which gave them the knowledge and skills to support people effectively. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were asked for their consent to the care and support they received.
There was a system in place for dealing with people’s concerns and complaints. People told us they knew how to complain and felt confident to do so.
A registered manager was in post who also had responsibility for the service located immediately next door. A new manager had been appointed for Jordan Lodge who would be applying for registration with CQC.
Further information is in the detailed findings within this report.
We visited the service on 18 and 19 November 2014. The inspection was unannounced. Jordan Lodge provides rehabilitation and recovery care for up to 14 male adults with mental health needs.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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 service is run.
People felt safe and happy. They were confident they could speak to members of staff or the manager if they had any concerns. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from the risk of abuse or harm. The service provided a safe and comfortable environment for people, staff and visitors. Risk assessments reflected people’s needs and supported their goals. They provided guidance for staff about how to manage risks for each individual. There were enough qualified and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. People’s medicines were administered safely.
Staff received regular training and management support. Mental capacity assessments were carried out to establish each person’s capacity to make decisions and consent to their care and treatment. The manager and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards. People had sufficient food to eat and liquids to drink. Outside of main meal times facilities were available to make sandwiches and hot or cold drinks. People were supported with healthcare needs having a yearly check-up with the GP. The service encouraged people to cut down their smoking and alcohol intake.
People spoke positively about the staff at the service. Staff were aware of people’s needs, preferences and planned care and support. Each person was assigned a keyworker to help them to achieve their goals. People were involved in the planning of their care and support and reviewed every month with their keyworker how they were getting on. Staff treated people with respect and dignity.
Staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and as a result were able to provide personalised care and support. People were encouraged to access the local community and take part in activities to minimise the risk of social isolation. People were confident that they could raise any concerns with staff or the manager. The manager and deputy had an ‘open door policy’ and tried to address any issues at an early stage. There were regular meetings for residents to discuss issues about the running of the service. A complaints procedure was in place but none had been made.
Staff had confidence in the management team and felt valued. Staff meetings were held two or three times a year. A wide range of audits were carried out on a weekly basis covering all aspects of service delivery. Any issues identified were concluded in a satisfactory and timely manner. Other audits and spot checks were carried out by the manager and area operations manager to monitor and assess and improve the quality of service provision.
Where they were able people gave permission to their care workers to provide care and ensure their general safety and welfare. We observed that people were treated with respect and their agreement to treatment was sought in a kind and discreet manner. Where people lacked capacity to provide consent to care and treatment best interest meetings were held.
Peoples care was planned and delivered in a way that ensured their welfare was protected and their needs met. Each person had a set of personal goals they had agreed to work towards to achieve more personal independence for example being able to manage their own laundry.
We saw that medicines were stored and administered safely. We observed that people were able to have their medicines at a time that suited them and in a safe way.
We found that there were effective recruitment procedures in place.
There was written guidance available to help people using the service and their families raise a concern or make a formal complaint.
They made positive comments about the staff and life at Jordan Lodge. People said to us, 'It's really good here,' and, 'The staff are okay.' A regular visitor said, 'We are very happy with the home,' and, 'I can't fault the support and care from staff.'
We observed staff talking to people in a friendly and inclusive manner. We saw that staff respected people's privacy and dignity.