You are here

Archived: Colton Lodges Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 10 June 2016

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 4 April 2016.

Colton Lodges Nursing Home is a purpose built home comprising of four units Newsam, Whitkirk, Elmet and Garforth. It provides care for up to 138 people. At the time of inspection 126 people were living at Colton Lodges Nursing Home.

At the last inspection in March 2015 we found the provider had breached three regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.The registered person did not make appropriate steps to ensure that, at all times, there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and skilled and experience staff to meet people’s health and welfare needs. There were not suitable arrangements in place to ensure staff were appropriately supported in relation to their responsibilities to enable them to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard. The registered person did not take proper steps to ensure that each person was protected against the risks of receiving care or treatment that was inappropriate or unsafe.

The provider told us they would meet the regulations by the end of August 2015. The provider had completed an action plan and on this inspection, we found improvements had been made with regard to these breaches.

At the time of this inspection the home had 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.

Overall, people who used the service and visiting relatives said there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. However, we noted that people who used the service had to wait for periods of time for the support they needed such as assistance with meals.

People told us they felt safe and did not have any concerns about the care they received.

There were systems in place to record accidents and incidents.

The premises and equipment were well maintained to ensure people’s safety. The premises were clean in all four units and decorated to a good standard.

Medicines were administered to people by trained staff and people received their prescribed medication when they needed it. However two peoples medication had not been received for two weeks from the local pharmacy.

There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff were trained in the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). However in one unit staff did not fully understand what they must do to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act.

People were supported by staff who treated them with kindness and respect. Overall, their choices and preferences were respected and they were supported to make their own decisions whenever they could do so. Staff could explain to us what privacy and dignity meant to them and the people they supported.

Most people told us they enjoyed the food and got the support they needed with meals. However, some improvements were needed to ensure people who were underweight and needed support at mealtimes had staff to support and encourage them.

Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place to make sure suitable staff worked with people who used the service. Staff felt supported and had regular supervisions and appraisals.

There were good systems in place to ensure complaints and concerns were fully investigated. People had the opportunity to say what they thought about the service and the feedback gave the provider an opportunity for learning and improvement. People told us they would feel comfortable raising concerns or complaints. People provided positive feedback about the unit managers and registered manager.

We saw the provider had a system in place for the purpose of assessing and monitoring the quality of the service.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 10 June 2016

The service was not consistently safe.

Medicines were not always managed safely and administered in line with the prescribing instructions. They were ordered, stored and disposed of correctly.

Staff we spoke with were aware of how to recognise and report signs of abuse and were confident that action would be taken to make sure people were safe.

There were enough staff in the home to ensure people were safe.


Requires improvement

Updated 10 June 2016

The service was not always effective

Mental capacity assessments were completed in people�s care plans and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications had been appropriately sought. However two people who had capacity had a capacity assessment form completed on their behalf.

People were offered a varied and well balanced diet.

People received appropriate support with their healthcare and a range of other professionals were involved to help make sure people stayed healthy



Updated 10 June 2016

The service was caring

People and their relatives told us they were well cared for.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and staff took account of their individual needs and preferences.

Staff understood how to treat people with dignity and respect and were confident people received good care.



Updated 10 June 2016

The service was responsive

There was opportunity for people to be involved in activities.

People felt confident raising concerns. Complaints were responded to appropriately.

People received support as and when they needed it and in line with their care plans.



Updated 10 June 2016

The service was well led

The management team motivated staff to provide a good standard of care.

There were procedures in place to monitor the quality of the service and where issues were identified action was taken.

People spoke positively about the registered manager.