You are here

Archived: Sydervelt Lodge Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 29 June 2017

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 10 November 2015 and 18 December 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 10 November 2015 and 18 December 2015.

Sydervelt Lodge is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for five people who have a learning disability. There were five people receiving a service on the day of our inspection.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

Staff were knowledgeable about identifying abuse and how to report it to safeguard people. Recruitment procedures were thorough. Risk management plans were in place to support people to have as much independence as possible while keeping them safe. There were also processes in place to manage any risks in relation to the running of the service.

Medicines were safely stored, recorded and administered in line with current guidance to ensure people received their prescribed medicines to meet their needs. People had support to access healthcare professionals and services as and when required. People had choices of food and drinks that supported their nutritional or health care needs and their personal preferences.

People were supported by skilled staff who knew them well and were available in sufficient numbers to meet people's needs effectively. People’s dignity and privacy was respected and they found the staff to be friendly and caring. People were supported to participate in social activities including community based outings.

Staff used their training effectively to support people. The manager understood and complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff were aware of their role in relation to MCA and DoLS and how to support people so not to place them at risk of being deprived of their liberty.

Care records were regularly reviewed and showed that the person and their relatives where appropriate had been involved in the planning of their care. They included people’s preferences and individual needs so that staff had clear information on how to give people the support that they needed. People confirmed they received the care they required.

The service was well led; people knew the manager and found them to be approachable and available in the home. People living and working in the service had the opportunity to say how they felt about the home and the service it provided. Their views were listened to and actions were taken in response. The provider and registered manager had systems in place to check on the quality and safety of the service provided and to put actions plans in place where needed.

Inspection carried out on 31 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We found that peoples care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. People's health, safety and welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment, or when they moved between different services. This was because the provider worked in co-operation with others.

People were made aware of the complaints system and the provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. When we inspected the service we found people were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment.

People spoken with said they were happy and well cared for, with one person commenting, "I like it, food is nice, I go out a lot, I like helping out getting dinner ready�they are kind to me.� One relative wrote, �It is wonderfully reassuring to see how happy and content my relative is here. As a family we are always made welcome and anything we need to know is readily explained.�

Inspection carried out on 31 December 2012

During a routine inspection

Some of the people who live at Sydervelt Lodge had limited communication. They shared their views through facial expressions, body language and gestures. We spoke with three of the four people who use the service during our visit in December 2012. One person said, �I like living here, we go out to lots of different places and the staff are really nice.�

We looked at a sample of care and support files and found them to be detailed and informative. They had been regularly reviewed and updated to reflect any changes. People indicated that their care and support plans met their needs. We found that staff had been trained and had received regular updates in their training. Staff told us that they felt well supported to do their work.

The provider had good record management policies. Records were stored appropriately and quickly located when needed. Staff had been trained in confidentiality and had a good knowledge of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Inspection carried out on 15 June 2011

During a routine inspection

Not all the people using the service were able to communicate with us verbally, but they shared their views through the use of gestures, facial expressions and body language where ever possible. Much of the evidence was gathered during the visit through observation and people's interaction with staff. Their actions indicated that they were happy and appeared relaxed with staff. Those who were able to communicate verbally stated they were happy with the home and enjoyed living there. They added that they did lots of activities and enjoyed going out.

Staff were observed paying attention to people's needs and ensuring where possible that they were involved in their care and offering choice and encouraging involvement.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)