You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 September 2017

This inspection took place on 18 July 2017 and was unannounced. May Lodge is a care home which provides care and support for up to 6 people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder with additional physical disability needs. The service is a bungalow and is fully accessible for people in wheelchairs. The service is set within residential housing and is set back from a busy road and off street parking is available. At the time of our inspection there were three people living at the service.

Our last inspection in August 2016 found five breaches of our regulations and an overall rating of requires improvement was given. This was because there were concerns in respect of risk assessment and effective quality assurance. We also highlighted that improvements were needed in respect of medicines management, restrictions to a person’s liberty and staff training. The provider sent us an action plan which told us how they would improve and when this work would be completed. At this inspection we found that all these issues had been addressed.

There was a new registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 registered manager was present throughout the inspection.

The environment was well maintained although some improvements were needed to improve safety in the garden. Fire prevention and other equipment and installations were routinely serviced, checked and tested. Staff received fire training and plans were in place to ensure all staff participated in fire drills.

Staff had received training to recognise and act upon suspected abuse. Incidents and accidents were appropriately managed and analysed for trends. There was a robust staff recruitment process in place. New staff were inducted into their role and all staff received appropriate training. Staff felt supported and listened to, and received regular opportunities to express their views and discuss their training and development needs with their line manager. There were sufficient staff on duty at all times to meet people’s needs.

The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards and what this meant for the people they supported.

Staff understood people’s food likes and dislikes and developed menus that took account of individual preferences and special dietary needs. Alternatives to the menu were available for people and snacks and drinks were provided in between meals. Any nutrition and hydration risks were addressed with health professionals. People had individualised plans of care and support about which they and their relatives were consulted. People‘s health needs were met.

Staff demonstrated they knew people well. Staff were respectful to people and treated them with dignity and kindness. Staff showed they had a good understanding of people’s individual characters and provided support in a person centred way. People’s social needs were met. Staff communicated effectively with people and understood when they were unhappy about aspects of the service they received.

The provider had a quality monitoring system in place. A range of audits were in place to provide assurance that all aspects of service quality were being monitored and shortfalls acted upon to ensure people’s safety.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 September 2017

The service was safe.

People had risk assessments in place. Staff had detailed guidance to inform and enable them to support people safely.

The environment was well maintained. Some improvements were needed to ensure the garden remained safe. Medicines were managed safely.

Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse and keep people safe from harm. Recruitment processes checked staff suitability for their role. There were enough staff to support people�s needs.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed to identify patterns.

Staff had received fire training. A plan was in place to ensure all staff undertook regular fire drills.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 September 2017

The service was effective

People�s health needs were responded to promptly. People were referred appropriately to health care professionals and were supported to access professional healthcare appointments when they required this.

The provider had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and was working within the principles of the Act.

Staff received an appropriate induction and programme of training to help fulfil the responsibilities of their role. Staff felt supported and systems were in place to assess their development and competency.

Staff worked with people to enable them to make more active choices around what they ate and drank.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 September 2017

The service was caring.

People were calm and relaxed in the company of staff. Staff were attentive to their needs. They supported people at a pace that suited each person.

Staff had an understanding of people�s different methods of communication but sought advice from professionals to help with this. Staff treated people in a caring, respectful and friendly manner.

Staff encouraged people to make choices and were supporting people to develop daily living skills. Staff supported people to maintain contact with their relatives.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 September 2017

The service was responsive.

An in depth pre-admission process was in place for people referred to the service. People and their families were involved in care planning; relatives were invited to reviews. Care plans were individualised and person centred.

People had individual activity plans for in-house and external activities, and outings, these were flexible and could change dependent on each person�s wish to participate.

A complaints procedure was in place. Staff understood when people were unhappy and would take action to identify the cause and take appropriate action.

Well-led

Good

Updated 5 September 2017

The service was well-led.

Staff and external professionals spoke positively about improvements in the service as a result of the leadership at the service. Staff told us that they felt supported.

There was improvement to the audits and checks undertaken to make sure the service was safe and effectively run. There was improved oversight of the operation of the service by senior management.

Policies and procedures were available. The Care Quality Commission was appropriately notified of events.