You are here

Archived: Tilehurst Lodge Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 February 2017

We conducted and unannounced inspection of Tilehurst Lodge on 19 January 2017.

Tilehurst Lodge is a care home without nursing that provides accommodation for up to six people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of the inspection there were four people living at the service.

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 who were supported by the service felt safe. Staff had a clear understanding on how to safeguard people and protect their health and well-being. People received their medicines as prescribed. There were systems in place to manage safe administration and storage of medicines.

The service had robust recruitment procedures and conducted background checks to ensure staff were suitable for their roles.

People had a range of individualised risk assessments in place to keep them safe and to help them maintain their independence. Where risks to people had been identified, risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to manage the risks. Staff were aware of people’s needs and followed guidance to keep them safe.

Staff received adequate training and support to carry out their roles effectively. People felt supported by competent staff that benefitted from regular supervision (one to one meetings with their line manager) and team meetings to help them meet the needs of the people they cared for.

The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and applied its principles in their work. Where people were thought to lack capacity to make certain decisions, assessments had been completed in line with the principles of MCA. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS); these provide legal safeguards for people who may be deprived of their liberty for their own safety.

People’s nutritional needs were met. People were given choices and were supported to have their meals when they needed them. Staff treated people with kindness, compassion and respect and promoted people’s independence and right to privacy. People received care that was personalised to meet their needs.

People were supported to maintain their health and were referred for specialist advice as required. There were good systems in place to allow safe transitioning between services.

Staff knew the people they cared for and what was important to them. Staff appreciated people’s life histories and understood how these could influence the way people wanted to be cared for. Staff supported and encouraged people to engage with a variety of social activities of their choice in the community.

The service looked for ways to continually improve the quality of the service. Feedback was sought from people and their relatives and used to improve the care. People knew how to make a complaint and complaints were managed in accordance with the provider’s complaints policy.

Leadership within the service was open, transparent and promoted strong organisational values. This resulted in a caring culture that put people using the service at its centre. People, their relatives and staff were complimentary about the management team and how the service was run.

The registered manager informed us of all notifiable incidents. Staff spoke positively about the management support and leadership they received from the management team.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 February 2017

The service was safe.

Risks to people were managed and assessments were in place to manage the risks and keep people safe.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures.

Medicines were administered safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 February 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had the knowledge and skills to support people effectively.

People were supported to have their nutritional needs met.

Staff had good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act and applied its principles in their day to day work.

People were supported to access healthcare support when needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 February 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated as individuals and were involved in their care.

People were supported by caring staff who treated them with dignity and respect.

Staff knew how to maintain confidentiality.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 February 2017

The service was responsive.

People�s needs were assessed and support plans were accurate and reflected their needs.

People received person centred care which enabled them to pursue personal interests, education and work.

People�s views were sought and acted upon.

People knew how to make a complaint and were confident complaints would be dealt with effectively.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 February 2017

The service was well led.

People and staff told us the management team was open and approachable.

The leadership created a culture of openness that made staff and people feel included and well supported.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service and drive improvement.