The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Belvoir Lodge

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

243 Edwards Lane, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 6EQ (0115) 967 9287

Provided and run by:
Scope

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

4 October 2016

During a routine inspection

We inspected the service on 4 October 2016. The inspection was unannounced. Belvoir Lodge provides accommodation to five younger adults with learning and physical disabilities. The service is open plan to accommodate people who use wheelchairs. There is an overhead tracking system for the hoist, so that people can move around the service. On the day of our inspection five people were using the service.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on At the last inspection on , 29 September 2015 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to the way they monitored the quality of the service, and this action had been partially completed.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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 were supported by staff who knew how to recognise abuse and how to respond to concerns. Risks in relation to people’s daily life were assessed and planned for to protect them from harm.

People were supported by enough staff to ensure they received care and support when they needed it. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.

People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills to provide safe and appropriate care and support. People were supported to make decisions and staff knew how to act if people did not have the capacity to make decisions.

People were supported to maintain their nutrition and staff were monitoring and responding to people’s health conditions. People lived in a service where staff knew them and their preferences listened to them. People’s emotional needs were recognised and responded to by a staff team who cared about the individual they were supporting. People were supported to enjoy a social life. Concerns were responded to appropriately.

Systems in place to monitor the quality of the service were not always effective. People were involved in giving their views on how the service was run and there was an open and inclusive culture.

29 September 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected the service on 29 September 2015. The inspection was announced. We gave 24 hours’ notice of the inspection as the service is small and we wanted to be sure people would be at home. Belvoir Lodge is owned by Scope and is registered to accommodate up to five younger adults with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. The accommodation consists of a dorma bungalow which has been adapted to meet the needs of people with learning and physical disabilities. On the day of our inspection five people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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 who use the service have severe learning disabilities and the use of verbal communication is limited. We found that most of the staff had worked in the service for a long period of time and had an excellent knowledge of how each person communicated verbally and with gestures and body language.

People received their medicines as prescribed. However medicines were not always being stored safely to ensure they were still effective.

People were protected from the risk of abuse in the service and the team coordinator knew what information should be shared with the local authority when needed. Staff knew how to respond to incidents and when to share information with the safeguarding team. This meant there were systems in place to protect people from the risk of abuse.

Staffing levels met the needs of people who used the service to ensure they received care and support when they needed it.

People were supported to make decisions but where there was a lack of capacity to make certain decisions, people were not protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills to provide safe and appropriate care and support. Health risks to people were not always monitored appropriately.

People were supported to maintain their nutritional intake and staff involved a range of health professionals when people’s needs changed and they needed extra support.

People were treated with dignity and respect and had their choices acted on. We saw staff were kind and caring when supporting people, and supported them to develop their independence.

People were supported to enjoy activities and social stimulation. People were supported by staff who knew how to recognise if they were unhappy and knew how to respond to this. Complaints were dealt with appropriately.

Although people were involved in giving their views on how the service was run, the systems in place to monitor the quality of the service were not always robust.

17 April 2013

During a routine inspection

We used observations and looked at records to help us understand the experiences of the two people we were pathway tracking as they had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences.

During our observations we saw staff knew individuals needs and preferences. Staff we observed were sensitive and kind whilst delivering care and support. People appeared to be comfortable with staff and the interactions we saw were positive for the people we observed.

People's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Care plans were in place which met the needs of the people they were written for and staff had a good understanding of what was in the care plans.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place such as application forms with a history of the person's employment and two references in place from previous employers. Both of the staff we spoke with told us they had received an induction and training when they first started working in the home. They told us they had not been left unsupervised until they had an understanding of people's needs and felt confident working in the home. This meant people were being cared for and supported by staff who knew how to meet their needs appropriately.

3 May 2012

During a routine inspection

We were not able to communicate verbally with people using the service due to limitations in some people's verbal communication and other people being out at college. We gained their views by speaking with relatives, observing people during the day and looking at records.

People were encouraged to make choices for themselves. Staff sat with the people using the service each week and discussed meal options for the following week. Picture cards and the internet were used to support people who could not communicate verbally to make their menu choices. People using the service were also supported to go to the supermarket and choose the food they liked to eat.

During our visit, people were supported to be out into the community. Some went on a shopping trip and others were attending college. We saw that people were regularly given the opportunity to go on trips out in the community, go on holidays and given a choice of what to do for special occasions. This meant people were supported in community involvement and social activities.

One relative of a person using the service told us, 'I am absolutely happy with the home. Staff know my relative so well and my relative responds well to them.'

We spoke with two relatives of people using the service. One relative told us they felt their relative was safe. They told us their relative always appeared relaxed, confident and comfortable around staff and that they would know if they did not feel comfortable with any staff.

We received positive comments from the two relatives we spoke with in relation to the staff working in the service. They told us staff listened to them and acted on what they said. One relative said, 'staff have a brilliant attitude.'

Both relatives we spoke with gave positive feedback about staff and the team leader listening to their comments and concerns and making changes where it was felt needed.

28 November 2011

During a routine inspection

People using the service cannot communicate verbally so we observed staff providing care and support and we spoke with staff about the people using the service. This gave us assurances staff knew the needs of people and knew how to deliver the care and support effectively.

We saw there was a calm, relaxed atmosphere in the home when we visited. Staff and people using the service were interacting positively with each other. We saw that staff were kind and respectful to people using the service.

On the day of our visit there was a meeting being held with staff and people using the service to decide the menu for the following week. We saw recipes and pictures were used to help people to decide what they would like to eat. Staff told us the shopping list was always made up from the decisions people made in relation to the menu and people using the service took it in turns to go and get the shopping with support from staff.