You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 28 November 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 24 November 2017 and was unannounced.

Parkside Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Parkside Lodge provides care with accommodation for up to twelve people with mental health conditions in one building. At the time of our inspection visit there were seven people using the service. At the last inspection, in November 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection the overall rating for the service remained as Good.

People continued to receive safe care and the risks to people’s safety were continually assessed and reviewed. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff in place to support people.

People's medicines continued to be managed safely and effectively. We saw learning from incidents took place both in house and from the provider's other services.

Staff received a detailed induction and training programme and new training had been accessed to support staff to understand specific mental health conditions people may be affected by. Refresher training had been booked for those staff that needed it.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People were supported to lead a healthy lifestyle and where needed to lose or to gain weight. People’s day to day health needs were met by the staff.

People and staff enjoyed each other’s company and staff treated people with respect, dignity and compassion. There was a calm and positive atmosphere within the home, with people encouraged to do as much for themselves as possible. People’s independence was encouraged. People were provided with information about health services and their own care needs in a format they could understand. There were no restrictions on people’s friends or relatives visiting them.

People’s care records were personalised which enabled staff to support people in line with their personal preferences. We discussed with the registered manager that care records could be improved further around showing the goals and outcomes that people were working towards more effectively. Effective systems were in place to manage any complaints that the provider may receive.

The service was well-led. The registered manager was very enthusiastic about improving the service and making it a more recovery focussed model of care. The registered manager was well liked by all and they carried out their role enthusiastically and professionally. The service was focussing on developing the knowledge and skills of the staff team and there was a positive ethos about making changes which the staff told us about. People and staff were encouraged to contribute to the development of the service and effective auditing processes were in place to monitor the quality of the service.

Inspection carried out on 21 & 23 July 2015

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection which took place over two days, 21 & 23 July 2015. The last full inspection took place in May 2014. At that time, the service was not meeting the regulations inspected and we asked them to take action for assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision. Action was taken by the provider and we checked this outstanding issue in January 2015.

Parkside Lodge provides accommodation and personal care for up to 12 people with mental health needs. It is in a residential area of Gateshead in two joined terraced houses over three floors. There were eight people resident at the time of the inspection.

The service did not have a registered manager; there was a manager who had been in post for the previous eight months who had made an application with us to register. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

We found that people’s care was delivered safely and in a way of their choosing. They were supported in a manner that reflected their wishes and supported them to remain as independent as possible.

People’s medicines were managed well. Staff watched for potential side effects and sought medical advice as needed when people’s conditions changed.

Staff felt they were well trained and encouraged to look for ways to improve their work. Staff felt valued and this was reflected in the way they talked about the service, the manager and the people they worked with.

Staff were encouraged to access training to meet the needs of people who used the service. Additional external training had been sourced by the manager to support the development of the service.

The building was in the process of being refurbished. People had been involved in decisions about the re-decoration and their rooms were personalised and comfortable.

People, relatives and external professionals were complimentary of the service, and were included and involved by the staff and manager. They felt the service being provided met their needs well.

There were high levels of contact and supervision between the staff and people who used the service, seeking feedback and offering support as people’s needs changed over time. People felt able to raise any questions or concerns and felt these would be acted upon.

Staff were seen to be caring and to have a strong relationship with people. Relatives and external professionals said the staff team knew how to care and were innovative in finding ways to improve people’s quality of life. People told us the staff team was consistent and staff knew them well.

The service had a manager who was considered approachable and supportive by people, relatives, staff and external professionals. People and their relatives told us the manager helped to bring the person led values of the provider into the services through support and mentoring of the staff.

Inspection carried out on 13 January 2015

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

One inspector carried out this follow-up inspection. At the time of our inspection eight people lived at Parkside Lodge.

We carried out this inspection to check that improvements had been made in respect of shortfalls in assessing and monitoring the quality of the service identified on our previous visit on 7 May 2014.

During our inspection on 13 January 2015, we spent time speaking with the area manager, the new home manager, the deputy manager and care staff and reviewing records and quality documentation.

We found that the service had recruited a new manager and that this person was about to start the registration process with us. We found that the action we had told the provider to take had been taken. For example, the area manager had conducted bi-monthly audits and fire drills had been carried out at least every three months. Staff told us that the period in which the home did not have a permanent manager had been handled well and that they had felt supported in the interim by the area manager and the manager of a nearby home.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Inspection carried out on 7 May 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection was carried out by one inspector. At the time of the inspection there were eight people who lived at the home. We spoke to five people who used the service and observed their experiences of care to support our inspection. We spoke with the area manager, two care staff, and one health care professional.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

We considered our inspection findings to answer 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?

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

We found shortfalls in safety procedures. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to this.

People told us that they felt safe. One person said, “I feel very safe living here, the staff know me and look after me very well.”

People were cared for in an environment that was clean and hygienic.

At the time of the inspection, there were no people in the home subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were protected from abuse because staff had received appropriate training to help them identify and prevent abuse from occurring.

We saw evidence that the staff supported people to access professional healthcare in the community when necessary.

The service had information available to staff on health conditions that people who lived at the home may need additional support with, for example epileptic seizures.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the care that was delivered and their needs were met.

It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they (staff) had a good understanding of the people’s care and support needs and that they knew them well. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people who lived at the home.

We saw evidence that one person who lived at the home had improved health and wellbeing since moving into the service.

Is the service caring?

We saw that care workers were patient and supportive to people in their care.

People told us they were able to do things at their own pace and were not rushed. Our observations confirmed this. One person told us, “I love living here; staff look after me and help me when I need them to.”

We observed people being taken and supported to health appointments in the community.

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs had been assessed and reviewed regularly. We also noted that any changes to behaviour were further assessed and actions taken to access professional healthcare support.

We found shortfalls in the monitoring of the quality of service provision and have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to this.

We spoke to a healthcare professional who told us that the staff always work in partnership to help them further support the individual they were working with.

Is the service well-led?

We found that there was no registered manager and the provider was in the process of recruiting to the post. In the interim, the deputy manager was responsible, but the service was being monitored by the area manager and further supported by a manager from another service.

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and seemed passionate about caring for the people who lived at the home.

Staff had received appropriate training, including NVQ qualifications in health and social care and other mandatory training.

When asked, staff knew who to contact if they had a problem.

Inspection carried out on 21 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with several people living at Parkside Lodge and observed the support given to them. We saw staff promoted choice and involved people in the planning of their care. Staff documented people’s choices, preferences and decisions.

We found people received the care they needed. People made positive comments about the care received and told us they were happy with the support provided to them. For example, one person remarked, “I’m happy here.” Another person said, “You’ve got an allocated key worker, but all the staff help you.” We observed there was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the home.

We saw the home was clean, free from odours. There were arrangements in place to minimise the risk of cross infection.

Staff were safely recruited. People told us they were happy with the staff who worked with them and we observed staff acting in a courteous and professional manner. One person remarked about staff, “The staff are excellent, you cannot get a better staff.”

There were arrangements for obtaining and acting on people’s views. There were regular meetings with the people living here, where their views were sought. Regular questionnaire surveys were also sent to people living at the home. One person told us, “If you’ve got a problem the door’s always open.”

Inspection carried out on 29 October 2012

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We inspected most communal areas and people’s bedrooms. We found the provider had made significant improvements to the standard of accommodation for people living at Parkside Lodge. Work was continuing to maintain these improvements and some areas still needed attention to ensure the safety, dignity and comfort of the people living there.

Inspection carried out on 18 July 2012

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We were able to speak with three people during our visits. Those who were able to express an opinion told us they felt safe and well cared for. One person expressed concern over some recent disruption by someone who had been upset and agitated.

Positive comments included, “I’m happy with everything here”; “It’s an alright place to live”; “The staff are great and always friendly”; and, “I know I am safe here”.

Inspection carried out on 5 March 2012

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

This inspection was carried out to check whether shortfalls identified at our last review in January 2012 had been addressed and to ensure that people using the service were now safe and fully cared for.

We met with most of the seven people who were present at the service as we walked around the premises, and observed one person receiving their medicines in the office. We did not speak alone with anyone at this visit.

We met with one person who was unwell and required intervention which was taken promptly.

We saw good interactions between people and the care workers.

Inspection carried out on 12, 16 January 2012

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

This visit focused on checking whether shortfalls identified at our last review in September 2011 had been addressed to ensure that people using the service were now safe and fully cared for.

We met with several people who were living at the service as we walked around the premises and observed them receiving their medicines in the office. We did not speak alone with anyone at this visit. Those who we chatted to told us they were fine and had everything they needed. One person told us their bedroom radiator didn’t work. Another person was pleased that some improvements had been made to their room.

We saw good interactions between people and the care workers. It was clear that people were confident and relaxed enough to speak out and approach the staff when they needed help.

Inspection carried out on 1 September 2011

During a routine inspection

People were very positive about living at the service and told us about excellent relationships with the manager and her staff. Comments included;

“I can do what I want and all of the staff are kind and friendly”, “the manager is great and she is my main carer”, “I have a good life here and staff know what to do when I get unwell”, “The food is good and we have a choice. We also have takeaways which I enjoy”.

No-one raised any concerns with us and when asked could not think of anything that could be improved.

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