Archived: Whitestone Lodge

At the last inspection in November 2014, the service was given a rating of “Good” with one area highlighted for improvement which related to consent to care and treatment. At this inspection we found the area for improvement had been met.

People told us they felt safe living at Whitestone Lodge and were supported by staff that knew them well. One visiting relative told us “I have total peace of mind”.

The registered provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place for the management of safeguarding concerns. Staff had received training and demonstrated their understanding of abuse and actions they would take if they were concerned.

Staff recruitment procedures were safe and robust. Staff had received appropriate training and told us they were well supported. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of the people they supported.

People told us sufficient staff were on duty at all times to meet their needs. Discussions with staff, relatives and our observations confirmed this.

Medicines were appropriately ordered, stored and administered by trained and competent staff. Medication administration records (MARs) were fully completed and signed. The registered provider regularly audited the medicines and completed actions as required.

Care plans and risk assessments were person centred and demonstrated the involvement of people and their relatives, where appropriate. These documents were reviewed and updated regularly.

The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

People told us they were always offered a variety and choice of meals. Individual dietary requirements were met in accordance with people's care plans. We saw people had access to regular snacks and drinks throughout the day.

The building was well maintained, clean and free from unpleasant odours. All equipment was well maintained and regularly serviced.

People living at the home and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or complaint.

The registered provider undertook regular audits to monitor the quality of the service. The registered provider regularly sought people’s views to continually improve and develop the home.

During our visit, we observed all medication was stored appropriately and securely which ensured the safety of all people using services. Close monitoring of all processes were in place that identified who was responsible for any handling of medication at any given time which provided an acceptable audit trail. Records confirmed all staff members had received training on all aspects of their role as part of a comprehensive induction training programme which included a period of `shadowing` a senior member of staff and a period of probation prior to confirmation of permanent employment. We found that people using services at Whitestone Lodge had their complaints listened to and acted upon and systems were in place that supported people to make a complaint.

We observed a good rapport between the people who used the service and staff. Our observations indicated that staff were attentive and had a caring attitude towards the people who used the service. We also spoke with the manager and four staff. We looked at the care records for five people to see how their needs should be met.

There were practices in place to ensure that the people who used the service were respected and that they were involved in the delivery of the service they received as far as this was possible.

Records showed that people had been assessed before they began to use the service. They had a care plan in place detailing the support they needed and how staff were to minimise risks to their well-being.

Staff were provided with the support they needed to enable them to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.