We carried out a review of the data available to us about Brendon Lodge on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Brendon Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
Brendon Lodge is a nine-bedded residential care home that was providing personal care to nine people who have a learning disability and or a physical disability or autism at the time of the inspection.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
People’s experience of using this service:
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support. People were encouraged to be independent within their home. Staff understood people’s individual communication needs and worked in proactive ways to provide person-centred support.
The provider supported staff in providing effective care for people through person-centred care planning, training and supervision. This ensured the provision of best practice guidance and that supported staff to meet people’s individual needs.
Accidents and incidents were not always analysed and shared. We have made the recommendation that the provider improve the recording of analysis and shared learning of accidents and incidents.
People participated in a range of activities that met their individual choices and preferences. Staff understood the importance of this for people and provided the support required. This enabled people to achieve positive outcomes and promoted a good quality of life.
The provider had a consistent staff team who understood the needs of people well. We saw staff upheld and promoted people's rights relating to equality and diversity.
Relatives and staff told us they thought the home was well led and spoke positively about the registered manager. The provider and registered manager carried out numerous audits to ensure the service was effective. Staff supported people to integrate into their local community and the culture of the service promoted the values of supporting people to be as independent as possible.
Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 11 January 2017).
Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection and was planned based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service and plan to inspect it in line with our re-inspection schedule. If we receive any information of concern we may bring out inspection forward.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Brendon Lodge provides care and accommodation for up to nine people. On the day of the inspection nine people were living in the home, six in the main house and three in the bungalow in the grounds. The service provides care for people with learning and or a physical disability and autism.
At the time of our inspection there was 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.
The service provided good care and support to people allowing them to lead fulfilled and meaningful lives. Relatives said they felt people were safe and well cared for.
The interactions between people and staff were positive. We heard and saw people laughing and smiling. People looked comfortable, relaxed and happy in their home and with the people they lived with. Relatives were welcomed into the home and had clearly formed positive and trusting relationships with the staff team.
There was a positive culture within the service. Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and spoke in a compassionate and caring way about the people they supported.
There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs and to keep them safe. The provider had effective recruitment and selection procedures in place and carried out checks when they employed staff to help ensure people were safe. Staff were well trained and aspects of training were used regularly when planning care and supporting people with their needs and lifestyle choices.
People were supported by staff who had a good understanding of how to keep them safe. All staff had undertaken training on safeguarding adults from abuse, they displayed good knowledge on how to report any concerns and were able to describe what action they would take to protect people from harm.
Staff encouraged people to be independent and promoted people's choice and freedom. People moved freely around the building and its grounds as they chose.
Care records were detailed. They contained detailed personalised information about how individuals wished to be supported. People's individual method of communication was taken into account and respected. People's risks were well managed, monitored and regularly reviewed to help keep people safe.
People were supported to take part in a range of activities both inside and outside in the community.
Activities were meaningful and reflected people's interests and hobbies.
People had their medicines managed safely.
People were supported to maintain good health through regular access to health and social care professionals, such as GPs and speech and language therapists.
People's dietary needs and any risks were understood and met by the staff team.
The manager and most staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported where possible to make everyday choices such as what they wanted to wear, eat and how to spend their time. The manager was aware of the correct procedures to follow when people did not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves and if safeguards were required, which could restrict them of their freedom and liberty.
Staff described the management as supportive and approachable. Staff were well supported through induction and on-going training.
The service had an open door policy. Relatives were always welcomed and people were supported to maintain relationships with those who mattered to them. People's relatives and health and social care opinions were sought and there were quality assurance systems in place that monitored people's satisfaction with the service. Some records and procedures associated with quality assurance needed to be reviewed and improved and we have made a recommendation about this.
Audits were carried out and investigations following incidents were used to help make improvements and ensure positive progress was made in the delivery of care and support provided by the service.
Due to the severity of people's learning disability we had limited communication with people who use the service. We did however have an opportunity to chat with four people, and obtain their views where possible. We spent time observing people and staff in the home and the interaction between them. We spoke with four members of staff and with the registered manager of the service. We observed care and support provided to people who live at the service at different times of the day.
We looked at five support files of people that live at the home, each person had an assessment of their needs and a care plan, including risk assessments. We also looked at four personnel files and their training records they were detailed and showed regular support and training.
We spoke with a member of staff, and discussed training support and supervision. They were able to show detailed records of training that they had attended and were aware of forthcoming training events. They told us that they were well supported and help and advice was readily available.
We observed staff appropriately, handling and administering medication to people and viewed storage and examined policy and procedure.
The registered manager told us that all staff attended safeguarding awareness training and this was followed by regular refresher courses. Staff training records and the providers training programme reflected this.
We spoke with the registered manager of the service who told us that a review of staffing had taken place since our last visit to the service and that improvements had been made to the staffing levels.
We spoke with three members of staff and they all told us that the staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of people who lived at Brendon Lodge. One person told us "There is enough staff to enable spontaneous activities to take place." Another said "Even at weekends there are enough staff so we can get people out into the local community".
Staff confirmed that the staff rota was a true reflection of how staff were deployed at the home.
Two people told us how they liked living at the home. One person said how they visited family members and how staff supported them with this.
Relatives told us that their relatives living at the home were 'happy' at the home. The home was said by the relatives to look after people well. A personalised service was said to be provided for people, which included accessing community facilities. Relatives told us the home communicated well with them about people's changing needs.
We observed people being able to access the home's communal areas or to spend time in their room. This included people who were wheelchair users. People were relaxed in moving around the home and communicating with staff who always responded positively to people.
We observed staff appropriately, handling and administering medication to people.
At the time of the visit there were three care staff on duty. This was not sufficient to allow staff to adequately monitor people, especially as two staff were administering medication leaving one staff member to cook and supervise people in two houses. We were told by staff that four staff were usually on duty.
We spoke with the families of people who use the service and they told us that the home supports people to make choices by using pictures and signs to enable them to indicate their preferences as much as they are able.
They told us that they had been involved in the care planning process for their relatives and they said the care is very good. They said that they are kept up to date regarding any treatment that may be required and that they are invited to attend appointments and reviews.
Relatives of people were very positive about the home's care staff and said that the staff were very good and were well supported by the homes manager. They told us that they were confident that their relatives were kept safe and protected from any form of abuse. They also told us that that if they had any concerns or complaints then they would raise it with the homes manager and that any complaints would be dealt with appropriately.
Staff told us that they would always respect people's wishes and said that people are involved in all aspects of their lives as much as possible and that people are actively encouraged to express their views and opinions.
Staff members who we talked to told us that their recruitment was robust. They said that the training provided is very good and that they regularly attend refresher courses to maintain their knowledge, skills and competency in all aspects of supporting the people in their care.
Staff spoken with told us that the staffing levels were about right and that if they planned to go out with people to support them with activities or trips then the manager would ensure that there was sufficient staff on duty to enable this to take place.