We carried out a review of the data available to us about Philia Lodge Rest Home 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 Philia Lodge Rest Home, you can give feedback on this service.
There was a robust visitor management procedure in place to ensure people were kept safe. Information available about the home’s visiting protocols was comprehensive.
Staff facilitated numerous ways that people could keep in touch with their friends and relatives including window visits, garden visits, screened visits and face to face visits with one nominated person. There were seven computer tablets available for people to use within the home.
People's health was monitored closely to ensure any signs of Covid-19 infection were identified quickly.
Philia Lodge is a residential care home providing personal care to 18 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 20 people.
Philia Lodge provides accommodation over two floors. The building has communal areas which include a conservatory, lounge/diners and a garden for people and visitors to use.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were safe living at Philia Lodge. Staff were recruited safely, and safeguarding processes were in place to help protect people from harm. Risks had been assessed and guidance was in place for staff to follow to minimise the risks identified. Care plans were detailed, person centred and evidenced that people and their relatives were consulted about their care preferences.
People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed and risks to their health and wellbeing were managed safely. The provider had robust systems to manage safeguarding concerns, accidents, infection control and environmental safety.
People benefitted from suitably trained, competent and skilled staff. Peoples healthcare and
nutritional needs were met. External professionals were complimentary about how the service worked in partnership with them.
Philia Lodge provided a person-centred service. Staff were caring and kind and had developed positive and meaningful relationships with people. People were respected and included in decisions about their care and welfare. Their privacy and independence promoted. The care provided was sensitive to people's diverse needs.
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.
The provider's quality assurance systems were effective. The registered manager was well supported by a team of staff with clearly defined roles and responsibilities. There was an open, transparent and positive culture at the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 15 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
This inspection was unannounced and took place on 10 May 2017. At the previous inspection on 15 and 17 December 2014 the service was rated Good and we found that at this inspection, it continued to be rated Good.
People's experience of care at the service was very positive. They felt extremely well looked after by members of staff who genuinely cared about their well-being and took the time to talk with them and make them feel special. All staff were incredibly passionate about the care they provided people with. They worked hard to ensure that people's needs were met and exceeded, to ensure they had the best quality of life possible. Steps had been taken to ensure that people were involved in their own care. They were provided with all the information they needed to understand the service, their care package and ways of seeking additional support. Dignity and respect was very important to the service and members of staff worked hard to ensure this was promoted and that people had privacy when they needed or wanted it. Staff also worked with people to help develop their independence and increase their access to their local community.
The service kept people safe. Staff had been trained in recognising and acting on abuse and there were systems in place to ensure that all accidents and incidents were reported and followed up on. Risk assessments were in place to provide staff with guidance around areas of risk and the actions they should take to reduce the impact of those risks on people. There were enough staff on shift to meet people's needs and recruitment practices ensured that staff members employed were of good character to work with people. Systems were also in place to ensure the safe administration of people's medicines, including appropriate storage and recording.
Staff members received training and refresher sessions to develop and maintain their skills and were also supported in the form of regular supervisions. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff members sought people's permission and consent before providing them with care and systems were in place to ensure the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were adhered to. People enjoyed the food at the service and they were supported to ensure their specific dietary needs were met. They were also supported to book and attend appointments with healthcare professionals as required.
People's care was provided in a way which was sensitive to their individual needs and preferences. Care plans were tailored to each individual and were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure the information within them was accurate and up-to-date. Activities took place to provide people with stimulation and the recently appointed activities coordinator had a number of ideas to help develop what was on offer for people. Feedback, including complaints, was welcomed and used to help drive improvements.
The service had an open and positive culture. Staff members were motivated to come to work and enjoyed their roles. They were well supported by the registered manager who was also looking at a number of different areas where they could develop the service. The provider was involved in the running of the service which gave the registered manager the support they needed. Quality assurance systems were in place to ensure checks and audits were carried out and these were used to help improve the service.
This unannounced inspection was carried out on 15 December 2014 and 17 December 2014 and was completed by 2 inspectors. The previous inspection took place on 27 November 2013, during which we found no breach of the regulations we looked at.
Philia Lodge Rest Home is a care home registered to provide accommodation and non-nursing care for up to 20 people. There were 17 people living at the home at the time of our visit. The home had internal and external communal areas, including a lounge, dining area, conservatory and a garden for people and their visitors to use.
There was a registered manager in place. 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.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. We found that there were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making and appropriate applications had been made to the authorising agencies for people who needed these safeguards.
People who lived in the home were assisted by staff in a kind and respectful way that also supported their safety. People had support and care plans in place which recorded their individual needs and wishes. These plans gave staff guidance on any assistance a person may need as well as their individual choices and preferences.
Risks to people were identified by staff and plans put into place to minimise these risks and enable people to live as safe and independent life as possible.
There were arrangements in place for the safe storage, management and administration of people’s prescribed medication.
Staff cared for people in a warm and caring way. Staff took time to comfort people who were becoming upset or anxious in a patient and understanding manner.
There were a sufficient number of staff on duty. Staff were trained to provide effective care which met people’s individual support needs. They understood their role and responsibilities and were supported by the manager to maintain their knowledge and skills by supervision, appraisals and training.
People were able to raise any suggestions or concerns that they might have with staff members or the manager.
Staff told us that there was an open culture within the home and this was confirmed by our observations during this visit.
The manager had in place a quality monitoring system to identify areas of improvement required within the home. Where improvements had been identified there were actions plans in place which documented the action taken.
The provision of social and recreational activities maintained and promoted people's wellbeing. In addition, people's health was maintained and promoted. This was because people were supported to access a range of health care services and their health was monitored and reviewed. People told us that their needs were met and that they were satisfied with how this was done.
People told us that they always had enough to eat and drink. They also told us that they were given a choice from the menu. People's individual nutritional needs were also catered for.
People were provided with safe equipment to support their comfort, health and safety needs. Records demonstrated that equipment was safe for people to use and that Philia Lodge Rest Home was a safe place to live, work and visit.
Members of staff were trained and supported to safely do their job, which they said they liked and found it to be rewarding.
There were systems in place which enabled people to make their comments, concerns or complaints. People knew who they would speak with if they were unhappy, but said that they had no cause to do so.
We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) in the lounge area to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk to us. There was limited interaction or engagement with activities until one person began to play the piano. Most people responded positively although one person became a little agitated. Staff were aware of the person's needs and responded appropriately.
The home was clean and well maintained at the time of our visit and we found that some infection control practices were being improved. Soap and hand gel dispensers were not yet available in all areas and room cleaning checks were not yet in place. The manager had already taken some action to address these issues. although they had not been fully completed at the time of our visit.
We found that people were well cared for and there were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff to meet their needs. Records were stored securely, accurate and contained up to date information.
People told us that staff were able to support them in the correct way most of the time. One person said that staff were, 'Very kind' and knew how to care for them.
Another person who had lived at the home for a number of years said that they were,
' Very happy here,' and told us that staff were very friendly and helpful.
All of the people we spoke with said that they were warm and comfortable and were satisfied with their accommodation.
There were less positive comments made when we visited in September. One person said, 'I have not had any hot water for a long time' and another person advised us that they had been offered the wrong medication.