Archived: Lulworth

Lulworth is a residential home registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 16 people. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people living at the home. Lulworth provides support for people with learning disabilities, people on the autistic spectrum and people with physical disabilities. Some people may have additional mental health issues.

A registered manager was in post and had been registered since June 2011. 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. They told us they will be de-registering from Lulworth to focus on a home owned by the same provider, which is next door to Lulworth. The registered manager and newly appointed manager were both present throughout the inspection. The newly appointed manager had worked within the homes since 2010 and was appointed to the manager position in June 2016. They were about to apply to become the registered manager.

Lulworth is situated in walking distance from Worthing seafront, within close proximity to shops and other town amenities. Lulworth has one registration with the Care Quality commission however comprise two separate buildings named Lulworth and a smaller annex named Blake. Lulworth, the larger of the two buildings, accommodates 10 people; bedrooms were spread out over two floors. Communal areas included an open plan lounge leading into a dining area. Blake accommodates 5 people. Corridors were spacious and people who used wheelchairs were able to move freely and independently around both buildings. An attractive patio garden divides the two buildings and is easily accessible for people.

We found both buildings were clean, homely and had a friendly atmosphere. The ambience of the home was warm and inviting. Photographs of people were hung in communal areas and corridors throughout were decorated with items which were personal to people who lived there including craft items they had made. People styled their own bedrooms therefore each one was personalised and unique.

People told us both homes provided a safe service and there was enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were able to speak about what action they would take if they had a concern or felt a person was at risk of abuse. Risks to people had been identified and assessed and information was provided to staff on how to care for people safely and mitigate any risks.

People’s medicines were managed safely and administered by staff who had received specific medicine training. The home followed safe staff recruitment practices and provided a thorough induction process to prepare new staff for their role.

Staff implemented the training they received by providing care that met the needs of the people they supported. Staff received regular supervisions and spoke positively about the guidance they received from both managers.

Staff understood the requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and about people’s capacity to make decisions. They also understood the associated legislation under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and how to minimise restrictions to people’s freedom.

People could choose when, where and what they wanted to eat and were encouraged to be as independent as possible with their meal preparation. Additional drinks and snacks were observed being offered in between meals and staff knew people’s preferences.

Staff spoke kindly to people and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff knew people well and had a caring approach. People were involved in recruiting new staff to join the team.

People received personalised care. Each person was involved with their own care plan supported by keyworkers and managers. Care plans reflected information relevant to each individual and their abilities including people’s communication and health needs. People were encouraged to pursue their own interests and accessed a range of activities within the home and in the community.

There was a complaints policy in place. All complaints were treated seriously and were managed in line with this policy.

People were provided opportunities to give their views about the care they received from the service. Some people chose to use these opportunities to become more involved with their care and treatment. Relatives were also encouraged to give their feedback on how they viewed the service.

Managers demonstrated a ‘hands-on’ approach and knew people well. Links with health and social care professionals had been developed to meet the needs of people.

A range of quality audit processes were in place to measure the overall quality of the service provided to people.

We made a recommendation to the provider in the Caring domain about how elements of their caring and person-centred practice could be developed and embedded further to demonstrate sustained ‘outstanding’ practice.

One person who lived there told us 'I like living here' and another answered 'yes' when asked if they were happy living at the home.A relative told us they were 'very happy' with the care and support provided.

We saw that people living there had individual care plans in which were recorded their identified needs and how they should be met. We saw there was involvement of other health professionals and outcomes of assessments or treatment were incorporated into the person's care plan.

We found the nutritional needs of the people who lived there were assessed and food and drink was provided which met their needs and choices. We saw appropriate support being given during mealtimes in a manner which protected people's dignity and independence.

We saw there was a safe system for the receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medication. Staff had received appropriate training in the various aspects of medicine management.

We found the procedure for recruitment and induction of new staff included gathering information to ensure people were protected from harm.

We found there were systems in place to obtain feedback from people who use the service , their relatives and others involved in their care.

One resident told us that they felt safe and happy at Lulworth and would speak to any member of staff. A resident's relative told us 'they are safe, there are no problems and things are going well.' They told us they would speak to the manager, owner or deputy manager if there were any problems.

We saw residents were involved in the decision making of the home and their care through key worker meetings, resident's meetings and surveys. A resident told us "I have meetings every month with my key-worker." A relative told us "I'm involved in the care plans" and "I can come in and visit as and when."

We found that residents were cared for by staff that were appropriately trained for their needs, received supervision of their practice and had an opportunity to have their performance appraised regularly. We were told by a relative "staff were consistent with the same key worker for two years."

We saw there was a large range of activities within the home promoting social stimulation and community involvement, ensuring people's independence.

Systems were in place to obtain feedback on the service, to monitor the quality of service and to respond where improvements were needed.