• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: The Lodge Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Lodge Lane, Collier Row, Romford, Essex, RM5 2ES (01708) 780011

Provided and run by:
Ian Nicoll

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

15, 16, and 17 June 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out an inspection of The Lodge Care Home on 15, 16 and 17 June 2015 and the inspection was unannounced. When we last inspected The Lodge on 23 September 2014 as a follow up inspection we found that they were meeting the regulations we inspected.

The Lodge provides personal care and accommodation for up to 94 older people some of who may have dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 83 people using the service. The service is a large extended building based over two floors with large landscaped grounds.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

People told us they felt safe living at The Lodge, for example one person told us, “I’m safe here definitely”. A relative told us, “I’m glad that [my relative] is in here because I know she’s being looked after.” However we found evidence that there were insufficient slide sheets within the service which meant that people were required to share them. This presented as an infection control risk.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) are part of the

Mental Capacity Act 2005. They aim to make sure that people in care homes, hospitals and supported living are looked after in a way that does not deprive them of their liberty and ensures that people are supported to make decisions relating to the care they receive.

Evidence held in staff files showed that the service had robust processes in place to ensure staff were vetted for suitability prior to starting employment. Staff undertook comprehensive training to ensure they were equipped with the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles effectively including Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training.

We saw examples of good practice relating to staff interactions with people. Observations carried out during the three day inspection showed staff communicating with people in a professional and compassionate manner. Staff used varying methods of communicating and used their active listening skills to clarify they had understood the person’s needs correctly. Staff actively encouraged people to make choices and decisions relating to the care.

A new more in-depth care plan and risk assessment process was being implemented at the time of the inspection. Details relating to all known risks were recorded with clear guidance for staff on how to minimise these risks and maintain people’s safety.

23 September 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an inspection on 14 May 2014 and found that the provider was in breach of Regulation 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. We found that the provider had failed to report safeguarding incidents to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as is required. We also found that people's files did not include relevant risk assessments for each individual meaning that staff did not have clear information about how to minimise risks and support people in a safe manner.

At this inspection we found that improvements had been made. People told us they felt safe. A person who used the service told us, "Staff are all good. I have no complaints." Another person said " The staff are good, they do listen to us." People who used the service were aware of how to raise concerns. They informed us that if they were unhappy or had concerns they would speak to the manager.

Staff were aware of risk assessments which set out how to manage and reduce any risks to people in order to provide safe care.

Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. The provider had arranged for staff to complete Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards training in October 2014, so that they were aware of the impact of any decisions they made on behalf of people. The deputy manager had informed CQC of safeguarding incidents.

14 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask:-

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. Relatives told us that they were happy with the service provided. One relative told us 'he definitely is safe here, we would know if anything was wrong.' Staff had completed protection of vulnerable adults training and understood how to safeguard people they supported. However, we found that the home did not have a current comprehensive safeguarding policy and procedure in place. Three recent safeguarding incidents had not been reported to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as is required. People's files did not included all relevant risk assessments for each individual. This meant that clear information was not always available to staff about how the risks could be minimised in order to ensure people who used the service were supported as safely as possible. Staff had not received Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards training in order to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one so that they could ensure people's rights and choices were always promoted.

Is the service effective?

People's care needs were assessed with them and/or their representatives and they were involved in developing their plans of care. Care plans were up to date and reflected people's current needs. We spoke with eight people who used the service and asked them for their views about the care and support they received. They were positive about their experiences. One person told us 'we always have a nice breakfast, they are all lovely here especially the staff.' Another said 'you won't find much wrong here.' One relative told us "the care has been very good. X has a care plan, it says what the needs are. They provide the care X needs. They always phone me and keep me informed." The staff we spoke with had a good understanding of how to meet people's individual needs and were aware of their preferences and health care needs. This meant that staff had current information and details to enable them to meet people's needs effectively.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with people who used the service. We asked them for their opinion about the staff that supported them. One person told us "the staff are nice." Another person said 'the staff are marvellous, very obliging. They look after me well here.' People's preferences and diverse needs were recorded and daily notes showed that care and support was provided in accordance with this. We saw that staff supported people in a respectful and kind way. They offered people choices and talked to them about what was happening or what they needed to do.

Is the service responsive?

Staff we spoke to were knowledgeable about the needs of people they supported and how to meet them. Care plans included information about people's preferred routines and healthcare needs as well as their likes and dislikes. This ensured that people received an individualised service. Care plans were reviewed and updated monthly or when people's needs had changed. Senior staff referred people to appropriate professionals for assessment and advice. Any actions advised by them were implemented by staff. People were supported to access a range of healthcare professionals to promote their wellbeing.

Is the service well-led?

Sufficient systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided to ensure that people received safe, quality care. Regular relatives and residents meetings were held to seek their views and opinions about the service in order to find out where improvements were needed. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They were supported by the management team to provide good, quality care. Staff were encouraged to complete relevant training which enabled them to carry out their roles effectively. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. Relatives told us that they did not have any complaints but were confident that the manager would resolve any issues raised to their satisfaction.

21 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We found that people in the service were treated with dignity and respect by the staff. People and their relatives were mostly very positive about it, one said it 'was excellent and always clean.' People told us they liked the food provided and could chose what to have. Staff assisted people to have adequate nutrition. We confirmed that there were sufficient staff on duty and that they were skilled and experienced in working with older people. We found that people's care records were maintained to ensure that they were accurate.

11 February 2013

During a routine inspection

People told us that they were treated with respect and dignity, and that they could make choices over their daily lives. One person told us they could eat were they chose, saying ""I do not go down to breakfast, they bring it to me." However, we found that people were not always given the choice of a single bedroom. People said that they were happy with the support provided. One person said 'I only have to push my buzzer and staff come, we have a good laugh and a joke.' We found that care planning was not consistent. Some people had care plans and risk assessments in place, others did not. We also found care plans had not been reviewed in the past twelve months.

We observed staff administering medications appropriately, and found that medications were stored securely. However, there were instances of poor record keeping in relation to medication. We found that the home regularly operated with less staff then had been assessed as needed to meet people's needs. Staff told us this impacted on their ability to carry out their duties. The service had an effective complaints system in place, and people told us complaints were dealt with. A relative said 'I noticed a plug socket in the lounge was cracked and it was fixed straight away.'