Archived: Park Lodge

Updated 11 May 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

This inspection was carried out by a single inspector

Service and service type:

Park Lodge is a small care home for four people with conditions associated with ageing including dementia.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. The manager of the home is also the provider.

Notice of inspection:

This was an unannounced inspection

What we did:

Before our inspection we reviewed records that we held about the home. These included:

• Notifications and other information provided by the home and other stakeholders

• The Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During our inspection we:

• Spoke with two people living at the home, the manager and two members of the care team.

• Looked at the care records for two people, three staff records and other records relating to the management and quality of the home.

Following our inspection the manager sent us further information about actions they were taking in relation to quality assurance monitoring.

Updated 11 May 2019

About the service:

Park Lodge is a small care home which is registered to provide care and support to four older people. When we inspected the home on 17 January 2019 four people who were living with dementia resided at the home.

People’s experience of using this service:

Regular quality assurance monitoring had been carried out in relation to people's care and support. Records had been updated where there were changes in people's needs. However we found that fire alarm and water temperature checks had not been routinely carried out and there was no annual audit of infection control. Following our inspection the manager sent information to show that fire alarm and hot water tests were now taking place. They also advised us that they would immediately carry out an infection control audit.

People told us they were happy with the care and support that they received from staff. They spoke positively about their care workers and the home’s manager.

Care and support was person centred and reflected people’s individual needs. People’s care plans and risk assessments had been reviewed regularly and updated where there were changes in their needs.

Staff communicated well with people and joined them in activities. Staff were able to communicate with a person who did not speak English.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and how these should be supported. They understood their roles and responsibilities in ensuring that people were kept safe from harm or abuse. They had received regular supervision and training to help them to care for people safely and effectively.

Staff supported people to make decisions about their care and support where they were able to do so. Information about people’s capacity to make decisions had been recorded in their care files. Applications for authorisations under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been made to ensure that people were not unduly restricted in any way.

Staff supported people to take their prescribed medicines. Accurate records of medicines administration had been completed.

People enjoyed their meals and their dietary needs had been catered for. They were offered choices at meal times and one person was provided with the cultural foods that they preferred.

People had good healthcare support. When people were unwell staff had immediately contacted healthcare professionals to meet their needs.

We made one recommendation in relation to ensuring that regular monitoring of safety at the home takes place.

Rating at last inspection:

Good (report published 7 September 2016).

Why we inspected:

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

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to inspect as part of our re-inspection programme.

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