You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 March 2018

This inspection took place on 11 and 18 January 2018. It was unannounced on the first day of the inspection and we made arrangements to return on the second day.

Christmas Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service provides support for people who have enduring mental health needs. The home is situated near to York racecourse and is close to shops and amenities.

At our previous inspection in October 2015 the service was rated Good in the key questions ‘Is the service safe’, ‘effective’ and ‘well-led?’ and Outstanding in the key questions ‘Is the service caring’ and ‘responsive?’ This meant the service was rated Outstanding overall.

At this inspection the rating for the key question ‘Is the service responsive?’ changed to Good. The other key questions remained the same. This means the service is now rated Good overall.

The service has a registered manager. 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 service continued to be extremely caring. People we spoke with were unanimously positive in their praise of staff and told us they were very kind and compassionate. Staff knew people well and were highly motivated to provide care that was focussed on people’s individual needs and wishes. It was evident that people felt valued and respected. There was a very friendly and supportive atmosphere in the home.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and staff supported people in achieving their aspirations. For example, one person had fulfilled their lifelong ambition to take a helicopter ride.

People told us they felt very safe. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and robust recruitment checks were completed to ensure the suitability of workers. Staff were supported in their role; they received induction, training, supervision and appraisal.

People were supported to have 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.

People received appropriate support with their medicines. Where people wished to manage their own medicines independently this was encouraged and there were checks in place to ensure it was done safely.

Staff were aware of the importance of supporting people with good nutrition and hydration. Associated information was recorded in their care files. The staff had been successful in supporting people to gain weight, where this had been a concern. We received positive feedback about the food and saw that people, where possible, were encouraged to shop for and prepare their own meals. People had access to healthcare services, in order to promote their physical and mental health.

The premises was homely and suitable for people’s needs. People were involved in decisions about the decoration and the provider had taken steps to make the environment more accessible in response to changes in people’s needs. The environment and equipment was regularly checked and serviced.

There were detailed, person-centred care plans in place, so that staff had information on how to support people. These were regularly reviewed with the person. People were able take part in a range of activities of their choosing and they accessed the community independently or with the support of staff.

People’s views and opinions were sought in individual review meetings and ‘resident’s meetings’. We saw that people’s feedback was acted on. There was a complaints procedure in place, should anyone

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 March 2018

The service was safe.

People told us they felt very safe and well cared for. There were safeguarding procedures in place and staff knew how to respond in the event of any concerns.

There was a robust recruitment process in place and sufficient staff to meet people�s needs.

People received appropriate support with their medicines.

The home was well decorated and maintained.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 March 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received induction, training and supervision to support them in their roles.

The registered provider understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

.

People received appropriate support with their nutrition and hydration and had access to healthcare services when needed.

Caring

Outstanding

Updated 29 March 2018

The service was extremely caring.

People consistently told us that staff were kind and supportive. People were valued, respected and empowered. Staff supported people to achieve their dreams and ambitions.

Privacy and dignity was consistently maintained. People were encouraged to be independent and to live the life they wanted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 March 2018

The service was responsive.

People were involved in planning their care. Care plans were detailed and person centred. People took part in a range of social and leisure activities of their choosing.

People�s views and opinions were sought and their ideas were acted on. People felt able to raise any concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 March 2018

The service was well-led.

There was a friendly atmosphere and the registered manager promoted a positive person-centred culture.

The provider worked effectively in partnership with other organisations, in order to meet people�s needs and provide a high-quality service.

There was a quality assurance system in place to monitor and improve the service.