• Care Home
  • Care home

White Lodge Residential Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Westfield Avenue South Strand, East Preston, West Sussex, BN16 1PN (01903) 789000

Provided and run by:
South Coast Nursing Homes Limited

All Inspections

19 March 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

White Lodge is a residential care home. The home is registered for up to 30 older people living with dementia or frailty. There were 25 people living at the home at the time of inspection. People had access to a communal lounge, a dining area and landscaped gardens. People each had their own bedrooms with en-suites.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿People were safe from the risk of abuse and other identified risks relating to them. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding people from potential abuse. One relative told us, "Mum has been here for two and a half years and I feel she is safe at all times. The staff are excellent, and somebody is always available especially if people are unwell. Mum has recently been in hospital and she had more night checks from staff on her return."

¿The home was clean and people were protected from infection risks.

¿Staffing levels met people's needs and staff were suitable to work with people.

¿People received effective care from skilled, supported and knowledgeable staff. Staff received training to support people's specific needs.

¿People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and were positive about the food provided.

¿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.

¿People received kind and compassionate care. A person told us, "People are very kind to me here and we are well looked after.”

¿People's privacy and dignity were respected and their views listened to.

¿People received person centred care that was specific to their needs. Activities were tailored to meet people's interests.

¿There was a complaints procedure in place which was accessible to people.

¿People were supported with compassionate end of life care.

¿People, staff, relatives and professionals spoke positively of the management of the home. There were a range of audits in place which supported the registered manager to drive improvements to the care people received.

¿People were supported to be engaged in the running of the home and told us their feedback was acted upon.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the homes rating at the last inspection.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor the intelligence we receive about this home and plan to inspect in line with our re-inspection schedule for those services rated Good.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

20 December 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 20 December 2017 and was unannounced.

White Lodge Residential Home 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. It provides accommodation, care and support for up to 30 older people, some of whom were living with dementia. At the time of our visit there were 26 people living at the home. The home does not provide nursing care. The accommodation was arranged over two floors with a lift for accessing each floor. The home offered single bedrooms with en-suite facilities. The communal areas included a lounge and a separate dining room set out in a restaurant style. The home had a well maintained garden and patio area. White Lodge Residential Home is situated in East Preston, West Sussex. The home is situated in a residential area close to the sea and local amenities.

At the previous inspection, the provider had failed to display the rating received following our inspection in 2014. The rating was now displayed in line with requirements.

The home did not have a registered manager in place as the registered manager had recently left the service. The acting manager was going through the process of registration. 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.

People felt safe at the service and there were appropriate procedures in place for identifying and responding to concerns of abuse. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in line with safeguarding policies and procedures.

People had their needs assessed and care plans were developed based on the outcome of the assessments however some of them required more detail about how staff should support the person. Environmental health and safety checks were not carried out regularly however equipment was checked regularly and serviced in line with the required frequencies.

We have made a recommendation about health and safety checks.

Staff recruitment procedures were not robust and the service had not adequately sought satisfactory references or obtained full employment histories for staff. There were enough staff to be able to meet the needs of people who used the service.

We made a recommendation about recruitment procedures.

Medicines were managed safely and the provider had procedures in place for that they were stored securely, administered in line with recommended guidance and recorded.

The premises were clean and free of any unpleasant odours and staff managed followed best practice guidance for cleaning the premises. Equipment was available to prevent the risk of the transfer of infection. The building was easily accessible for people with mobility problems and reasonable adjustments had been made for people who needed them. There was a lift in place to allow people to move freely between the two floors.

Care plans were developed ensuring that people's preferences and choices were reflected. Risks to people were identified and safety measures were put in place to control potential adverse situations. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Staff were given an induction when they started working at the service and were supported to access training required for their roles.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and were offered snacks and drinks throughout the day. People were given choices of meal options and staff were able to accommodate special dietary requirements.

People were able to access other healthcare services including GP's and chiropodists and guidance from healthcare professionals was reflected in people's care plans.

Staff spoke to people kindly and made effort to acknowledge people when they encountered them. There was a friendly and relaxed atmosphere throughout the home. People told us that they felt well cared for and relatives were complimentary about the care that their family members had received.

People were supported to engage in activities both inside and outside the home and were able to participate either in a group or a one to one basis.

People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns and the provider responded appropriately and sensitively to any concerns raised. Managers were acting on concerns and had made improvements to processes however they had not always been documented. It was difficult to locate some of the documents required during the inspection.

We made a recommendation about the accessibility of documents and quality assurance.

People were supported to prepare for the end of their life if they wanted to and their wishes and requirements were recorded. Staff were aware when people had Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) orders in place.

Some of the audits and safety checks had not been carried out formally. Some informal processes to monitor quality and make improvements had been carried out however formal processes were yet to be embedded.

People who used the service, their relatives and staff said that management was approachable and were visible at the service. People who used the service and staff were able to give their feedback about the service. People and their relatives and staff were invited to meetings to discuss how the service was running.

This is the first time the service has been rated Requires Improvement.

19 April 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 19 and 26 April 2016 and was unannounced.

Following an inspection in October 2014, we asked the provider to take action. The provider had not sent notifications to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) or notified CQC of changes to the registered managers contact details. The provider did not have suitable arrangements in place for obtaining and acting in accordance with peoples the consent. At this visit, we found that action had been taken and the provider had complied with previous requirements.

White Lodge Residential Home is registered to provide accommodation, care and support for up to 30 older people, some of whom were living with dementia. At the time of our visit there were 27 people living at the home. The home does not provide nursing care. The accommodation was arranged over two floors with a lift for accessing each floor. The home offered single bedrooms with en-suite facilities. The communal areas included a lounge and separate dining room. The home had a well maintained garden and patio area. White Lodge Residential Home is situated in East Preston, West Sussex. The home is situated in a residential area, close to the sea and local amenities.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 provider had not displayed their rating from the previous inspection on the premises or on their website, which is a requirement of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. During the course of the inspection the rating was posted on the premises but there was no rating displayed on their website.

People were protected from risks to their health and wellbeing. Plans were in place with safety measures to control potential risks. Risk assessments were reviewed regularly so information was updated for staff to follow.

People and their relatives said they felt safe at the service and knew who they would speak to if they had concerns. The service followed the West Sussex safeguarding procedure, which was available to staff. Staff knew what their responsibilities were in reporting any suspicion of abuse.

People were treated with respect and their privacy was promoted. Staff were caring and responsive to the needs of the people they supported. Staff sought people's consent before working with them and encouraged and supported their involvement.

The atmosphere in the home was happy and calm. People were engaged in activities, hobbies, interests and were encouraged to participate in community based activities.

People's health and well-being was assessed and measures put in place to ensure people's needs were met in an individualised way. Medicines were administered safely. People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain their health.

Staff received training to enable them to do their jobs safely and to a good standard. They felt the support received helped them to do their jobs well.

There were enough staff on duty to support people with their assessed needs. The registered manager followed safe recruitment procedures to ensure that staff working with people were suitable for their roles.

People benefited from receiving a service from staff who worked well together as a team. Staff were confident they could take any concerns to the management and these would be taken seriously. People were aware of how to raise a concern and told us they would speak to the registered manager and were confident appropriate action would be taken.

The premises and gardens were well maintained. All maintenance and servicing checks were carried out, keeping people safe. People were empowered to contribute to improve the service. People had opportunities to feedback their views about the home and quality of the service they received by annual surveys and residents meetings.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can read what action we have told the provider to take at the back of this report.

21 October 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 21 October 2014 and was unannounced.

White Lodge Residential Home provides accommodation, care and support for up to 29 older people with varying personal care needs. At the time of our inspection there were 24 people living at the home. The accommodation was arranged over two floors and there were lifts available for accessing each floor. The home offered single bedrooms with private en-suite facilities. There were communal lounges, dining rooms and bathrooms.

At our last inspection on 14 December 2013 we found the service was in breach of a regulation as adequate checks were not carried out to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. At this inspection the provider had taken the appropriate steps to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

There was a registered manager in post that was responsible for the day to day running of the service. 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 legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service did not follow their legal obligation to send notifications to CQC and as a result we were not aware if safeguarding referrals were being effectively monitored. There was a system to manage and report incidents and safeguarding concerns. However we were not notified of these concerns. Staff meetings had not taken place for some time.

People, relatives, and professionals felt the service was safe. A district nurse said “I’d be happy to put my relative here.” Staff knew how to keep people safe from potential harm by identifying and reporting concerns to their manager or to CQC. Risks were managed to ensure people and those around them were supported to stay safe and the premises and equipment were regularly assessed and checked. There were enough staff to meet people’s individual needs and to keep people safe. There were clear procedures for safely supporting people with their medicines.

The service was not always effective. Although staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) forms had not been reviewed and updated for one person. The MCA 2005 governs decision-making on behalf of adults who may not be able to make particular decisions. A DNACPR is put into effect if a person’s heart or breathing stops as expected due to their medical condition, and directs that no attempt should be made to perform a cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

We found the home to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) as people in the home were not currently subject to DoLS. DoLS are applied when the person does not have capacity to make a decision about what is being proposed for them. It provides the framework when acting in someone’s best interests means they are to be legally deprived of their liberty so that they can get the care and treatment they need

People needs were being met by sufficiently skilled and experienced staff. They were given a choice of meal and those who required a specialised diet were supported with this. People had regular access to Health care professionals.

People, relatives and professionals said the staff were caring. One professional said, “This is a lovely home.” Staff knew what people liked and disliked and people felt staff respected their privacy and dignity. People felt staff promoted their independence and were encouraged to do as much for themselves as possible. People were able to have a visitor at any time and their views about the care they received were encouraged.

People said their needs were met, regularly assessed and their care plans were updated and reflected how people would like their care to be given. Most people knew what was in their care plans. Those that did not know if they had a care plan had short term memory loss and the registered manager said they would revisit the care plans with these people. There were a range of activities for people to participate in. People were encouraged to take part in residents’ meetings where they could express their views about the home and the care they received. People had no complaints but knew what to do if they had any concerns.

The registered manager was always visible around the home. People, staff and relatives felt they were approachable and friendly. The registered manager had a system in place to analyse, identify and learn from incidents and safeguarding referrals. Falls audits were completed monthly to assess and review the number of falls people experienced that occurred each month. Risk assessments had been completed for the whole building.

We made recommendations in the well led section for the provider to take into consideration when making improvements to meet this key question. We recommend that the registered manager review the guidance about compliance regarding notifications and changes with registration details.

We identified a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which correspond to Regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

5 December 2013

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with told us that their decisions were respected by staff and they were given choices about their day to day care and treatment. A person said 'everything that happens is what I have agreed with'. We found that people were given information about their care and treatment in order to make an informed decision.

We found that people's care was based on an individual needs assessment and planned and delivered to meet their needs. A person's relative said 'the home meets what we want it to and my relative's requirements ' we are very happy'. We found that staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs and preferences.

We found that staff administering medication were trained and assessed and competent to do so. People told us they were satisfied with the management of their medicines.

We have asked the provider to make some improvements in the checks they carried out when they employed staff. We found that staff we spoke with had the relevant knowledge, qualifications, skills and experience to carry out their role effectively.

We found that the provider had an effective system in place to deal with complaints and this was monitored. Staff demonstrated that they understood how to support people in making complaints and information about the complaints system was available to people and or their representatives.

17 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five people individually and we spoke to four people at a dining table at lunch time.

People spoken with told us that their privacy and dignity were respected and that they have choices in daily living activities.

They told us they feel safe in the home and and one person told us that the staff were "very kind and helpful". Another told us "It is very clean here and the food is varied".

We spoke with four staff and we were told this was a supportive organisation to work for and that there was a good friendly staff team.

22 February 2012

During a routine inspection

The inspector was accompanied by an Expert by Experience. An expert by experience has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses a health, mental health and/or social care service. The Expert by Experience spent time talking to people about the service they received at White Lodge Residential Home as well as observing staff and people.

Each of the six people spoken to said the staff were pleasant, helpful and respected their dignity. Reference was made to staff always knocking on doors before entering bedrooms. The following comments were made:

'Staff are extremely friendly, do anything for you.'

'The food is excellent; there's always a choice.'

'The manager and deputy manager are very good. They listen and act.'

People told us the home met their care needs.

Sufficient numbers of staff were said to be on duty and people commented that the staff were attentive and kind. One person said, 'The staff are very good.' Another person said, 'The staff are considerate.'