You are here

Archived: Tudor Lodge Good

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 May 2016

This inspection took place on 6 April 2016 and was unannounced. At the last inspection in March 2014 we found the service was meeting the regulations we looked at.

Tudor Lodge is a small home which provides care and accommodation for up to six adults. The service specialises in supporting people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were six people living at the home.

The service is required to have a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the time of this inspection a new manager had been appointed for the service in February 2016. A new deputy manager was also appointed in December 2015. The new manager had submitted their application to CQC to become the registered manager for the home, which was being processed. Relatives and staff told us, prior to these appointments, the service had not been managed as well as it should have been. Relatives said there had been a lack of continuity and uncertainty as a result of staffing changes particularly with regard to the management of the service. Staff told us during the last two years morale and motivation had been affected by the changes in management.

However, people and staff had positive things to say about the new managers and the quality of their leadership at the home. People said the new managers had made improvements and positive changes at the home. Staff told us they felt better supported and morale and motivation had improved since the new managers were appointed. It was clear from people and staff’s comments they believed leadership of the service had improved but these changes were still quite recent so it was too early to judge at the time of this inspection whether these improvements were sustainable and that consistency in respect of the management of the service could be maintained.

The new managers were improving openness and transparency within the service. People said managers were approachable and they felt well listened to. Staff were encouraged to use communication methods more effectively to ensure people could participate in discussions about how the service could be improved. Staff themselves were provided opportunities to share their views and discuss any issues or concerns they had about work based practices.

Managers carried out regular checks to monitor the safety and quality of the service. They took action to make the necessary changes needed where shortfalls or gaps in the service were identified.

Relatives said people were safe at Tudor Lodge. Staff knew how to protect people if they suspected they were at risk of abuse or harm. They had received training in safeguarding adults at risk and knew how and when to report their concerns if they suspected someone was at risk of abuse. There were procedures in place for staff to follow to ensure concerns were reported to the appropriate person. They had also received training to ensure people were protected from discriminatory behaviour and practices that could cause them harm.

To keep people safe from injury or harm in the home and community, staff had access to appropriate guidance on how to minimise identified risks to people due to their specific needs. Maintenance and service checks were carried out at the home to ensure the environment and equipment was safe. Staff kept the home free of hazards and obstacles so that people could move safely around.

There were enough suitable staff to care for and support people. The provider had carried out appropriate checks to ensure they were suitable and fit to work at the home. Staff received relevant training to help them in their roles. Staff had a good understanding and awareness of people’s

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 May 2016

The service was safe. Staff knew how to recognise abuse and to report any concerns they had, to ensure people were appropriately protected. Staff were supported to protect people from discriminatory behaviour and practices.

There were enough staff to care for and support people. The provider had carried out checks of their suitability and fitness to work at the home.

Plans were in place to minimise identified risks to people�s health, wellbeing and safety in the home and community. Regular checks of the environment and equipment were carried out to ensure these did not pose a risk to people.

People received their prescribed medicines when they needed them. Medicines were stored and administered safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 May 2016

The service was effective. Staff received training and support from senior staff to ensure they could meet people�s needs.

Staff knew what their responsibilities were in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and DoLS. Procedures were in place to ensure when complex decisions had to be made staff involved relatives and health and social care professionals to make decisions in people�s best interests.

People were supported by staff to eat well and to stay healthy. When people needed care and support from healthcare professionals, staff ensured people received this promptly.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 May 2016

The service was caring. People said staff were caring. Staff knew people well and what was important to them in terms of their needs, wishes and preferences.

People were supported to express their views in a way that suited them. Staff used various methods to ensure people could state their wishes and choices and these were respected.

Staff respected people�s right to privacy and to be treated with dignity. Information about people was kept securely. People were encouraged by staff to be as independent as they could and wanted to be.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 May 2016

The service was responsive. Plans were in place which set out how people�s needs should be met by staff. They reflected people�s individual choices and preferences for how they received care and support. They were reviewed to identify any changes that may be needed to the support people received.

People were supported to live an active life in the home and community. They were encouraged to maintain relationships with the people that were important to them. Staff were welcoming to visitors and relatives were free to visit when they wished.

People told us they were comfortable raising issues and concerns with staff. The provider had appropriate arrangements in place to deal with any concerns or complaints people had.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 6 May 2016

The service had not been managed as well as it should have been. The service had not been consistently managed by a registered manager since June 2015. People and staff told us the lack of leadership from previous managers had created uncertainty and impacted on morale.

People and staff said the recent appointment of new managers had seen the management of the home improve. But it was too early to judge at the time of this inspection whether the improvements made were sustainable and that consistency in respect of the management of the service could be maintained.

The new managers were improving openness and transparency within the service. People said managers were approachable and they felt listened to. Staff were encouraged to use communication methods more effectively to ensure people could participate in discussions about how the service could be improved.

Staff were well supported by managers, provided opportunities to share their views and told us morale and motivation had improved.

Managers carried out regular checks to monitor the safety and quality of the service. They took action to make the necessary changes needed where shortfalls or gaps in the service were identified.