Archived: Care Management Group - Meesons Lodge

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

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

People told us they were safe. Suitable arrangements were in place to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood how to raise concerns and knew what to do to safeguard people. Risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were assessed, recorded and followed by staff. Suitable arrangements were in place to ensure people received their medication as they should. Enough numbers of staff were available to support people living at Meesons Lodge and to meet their needs. Recruitment practices and procedures were safe. People were protected by the prevention and control of infection. Findings from this inspection showed lessons were learned and improvements made when things went wrong.

Suitable arrangements were in place to ensure staff were appropriately trained and newly appointed staff received an induction. Staff felt valued and supported by the registered manager and received formal supervision. The dining experience for people using the service was good. People received enough food and drink to meet their needs. People were supported to access healthcare services and receive ongoing healthcare support. The service worked with other organisations to enable people to receive effective care and support. 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.

People were treated with care, kindness, respect and dignity. Staff had a good rapport and relationship with the people they supported, and observations demonstrated what people told us. Staff understood people’s different communication needs.

People’s care and support needs were documented, and staff had a good understanding and knowledge of these and the care to be delivered. No-one was requiring end of life care. Suitable arrangements were in place to enable people to participate in meaningful social activities to meet their needs. The service had not received any complaints since our last inspection and a record of compliments was available to capture the service’s achievements.

People told us the service was well-led and managed. Quality assurance arrangements enabled the provider and registered manager to monitor the quality of the service provided and staff performance.

Rating at last inspection

The rating at last inspection was good (published July 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as outlined in our inspection programme and schedule. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

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

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manager 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 with taking every day risks and encouraged to take part in daily activities and outings. However, systems and records to manage risk and to check on the quality and safety of the service needed strengthening to ensure people’s safety and wellbeing was maintained. This was in connection to pressure care, bed rails, monitoring people’s temperature and their weight.

Medication needed further monitoring to ensure people always had their prescribed medication. Records needed to be improved to ensure an audit trail was available on what action had been taken if medication was not available.

Staff showed a good knowledge of safeguarding procedures and were clear about the actions they would take to protect people.

There was a regular and consistent staff team. The provider had appropriate recruitment checks in place which helped to protect people and ensure staff were suitable to work at the service. There were sufficient numbers of skilled, well trained and qualified staff on duty. Staff told us that they felt well supported in their role.

We saw that appropriate assessments had been carried out where people living at the service were not able to make decisions for themselves; to help ensure their rights were protected.

People were supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs and were offered choice. We found that people’s healthcare was good. People had access to a range of healthcare providers such as their GP, dentists, chiropodists and opticians.

We found that detailed assessments had been carried out and that the care plans were very well developed around each individual’s needs and preferences.

People were happy and relaxed with staff. Systems were in place for people to raise concerns and they could be confident they would be listened to and appropriate action was taken. People were treated with dignity and respect and staff interacted with people in a kind, caring and sensitive manner.

The provider had a quality assurance systems in place. People had the opportunity to feedback on their experiences and staff tried to involve people in the running of the service. The service was well managed and the registered manager was looking at ways to develop the service and ensure people received the care and support they needed in a safe environment.

We found that all areas of the home were hygienic and well maintained. A cleaning schedule was in place and this was monitored for effectiveness. The kitchen area was hygienic and food was stored appropriately. Staff had been trained in infection control and food hygiene.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and skilled staff on duty. Training was relevant to the needs of people who used the service. Where staff shortages occurred, the provider had a system in place to ensure that staff numbers were maintained.

Staff were supported through training, regular supervision and an annual appraisal. Opportunities had been provided for staff to develop themselves professionally. Some of the staff we spoke with commented that the home would benefit from better supervision of night duty staff.

The provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of the services they provided. There was a programme of audits and an annual survey that relatives and staff were sent. There was a system in place to learn from adverse incidents and events.

One person said, “I am very happy with the care here, it is excellent. All the staff work very hard and I have been involved in the planning of the care and treatment they give.”

When we looked at the care files we found that they contained very detailed information to enable the provider to meet the needs of people using the service. They contained appropriate risk assessments for each user and it was clear that relatives had been regularly involved in both health and personal care.

We also observed staff members treating people with respect throughout the day and when talking with them, it was evident that they understood respect issues.

We also looked at safeguarding procedures and training and found that staff had a good awareness of the different types of abuse and how to report it. Relatives felt that service users were living in a safe environment.

The records we saw showed that regular reviews of the service had taken place. These took the form of staff surveys, audits by the manager and opportunities for relatives to provide feedback. This enabled areas for improvement to be identified.