Archived: Britannia Lodge

Updated 4 February 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 20 January 2021 and was unannounced.

Updated 4 February 2021

We inspected the service on 20 November 2018. The inspection was unannounced. Britannia 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. On the day of our inspection 10 people were using the service.

At our last inspection on 10 June 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good but there had been a deterioration in ‘effective’ which was rated as ‘requires improvement’. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People continued to receive a safe service where they were protected from avoidable harm, discrimination and abuse. Risks associated with people’s needs including the environment, had been assessed and planned for and these were monitored for any changes. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and safe staff recruitment procedures were in place and used. People received their prescribed medicines safely and these were managed in line with best practice guidance. Staff knew what to do in the event of an accident but there had not been any accidents in the last 12 months.

The service had deteriorated to ‘requires improvement for ‘effective’. People did not have access to the first-floor bathroom and the ground floor bathroom was in need of some refurbishment or repair to the floor covering. The registered manager had identified these shortfalls and was planning the work required. Staff received the training and support they required to meet people’s needs. People were supported with their nutritional needs. The staff worked well with external health care professionals, people were supported with their needs and accessed health services when required. 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. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) were followed.

People continued to receive care from staff who were kind, compassionate and treated them with dignity and respected their privacy. Staff had developed positive relationships with the people they supported, they understood people’s needs, preferences, and what was important to them. Staff knew how to comfort people when they were distressed and made sure that emotional support was provided.

People continued to receive a responsive service. People’s needs were assessed and planned for with the involvement of the person. Care plans were in place for each identified need. People received opportunities to pursue their interests and hobbies, and social activities were offered. There was a complaint procedure and action had been taken to learn and improve where this was possible.

The service continued to be ‘well led’. People and staff felt supported by and had confidence in the registered manager. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service provision and these included seeking the views of people and staff. There was an open and transparent and person centred culture at the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below