You are here

Archived: Sydervelt Lodge Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 July 2017

Sydervelt Lodge provides accommodation and care for five people who have a learning disability. The four people living at the service on the day of our inspection had lived in the service for some years. One of these people was currently in hospital for assessment. The premises are a two storey residential style house in keeping with the other houses in the area. There is street parking locally and an accessible garden to the rear for people’s use.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good and was meeting the fundamental standards.

At the time of this inspection a registered manager was not in post. The registered manager had recently left the service. The current manager had recently been appointed and confirmed they would be making an application for registration with the commission as required. 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 was safe. People were protected from the possible risk of harm or abuse by staff who were knowledgeable about identifying abuse and how to report it to safeguard people. Recruitment procedures were satisfactory. Risks to people had been assessed and managed appropriately to support their safety. There were also processes in place to manage any risks in relation to the running of the service. Staff deployment was suitable for people’s needs and people’s medicines were safely managed.

The service was effective. People were supported by skilled staff who worked as a team and supported people to exercise choice where possible in their daily lives. People’s nutritional and health care needs were met. People’s health care needs were assessed, reviewed and delivered in a way that promoted their wellbeing and improved their quality of life.

The service was caring. Observations and information provided by relatives confirmed that people were supported by kind and compassionate staff. Staff knew the needs and preferences of the people using the service. People’s dignity and privacy was promoted. Relationships were supported and relatives felt welcomed.

The service was responsive. People’s care needs had been assessed with them and their relatives. Care plans were person centred and reflected what was important to the person. People received care and support which was personalised and took account of their likes and dislikes. The service had a complaints policy in place and people felt able to complain if they needed to.

The service was well-led. A recently appointed manager was in post who was being supported in their role. The service had a positive and supportive culture. The provider had established systems in place to check on the quality and safety of the service and to put action plans in place where needed for the new manager to complete.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 July 2017

The service remains Good.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 July 2017

The service remains Good.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 July 2017

The service remains Good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 July 2017

The service remains Good.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 July 2017

The service remains Good.