You are here

Ashwood Lodge Care Home Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11 June 2014
Date of Publication: 19 July 2014
Inspection Report published 19 July 2014 PDF

Overview

Inspection carried out on 11 June 2014

During a routine inspection

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to look at seven outcome areas and use our findings to consider five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

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

Is the service safe?

Some part of the home needed maintenance work to ensure that they were safe and pleasant places for people to live. Some parts of the home were not clean and hygienic. For example, some carpets were badly marked, bathroom flooring was cracked and slippery when wet, some pieces of equipment and parts of the home were dirty and in need of cleaning. Compliance actions have been set and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.

Medication systems were in place to help people get the medication they had been prescribed. Suitable arrangements were in place for the safe storage and administration of medication, with the manager able to demonstrate improvements that had recently been made. For example, increased stock checks and better recording.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. One authorisation was in place at the time of our visit. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. Assessment and care planning systems were in place, to identify people�s needs and help staff provide the care people needed.

Quality assurance systems and checks were in place, but these had not always been effective at identifying and addressing problems at the service without external interventions. For example, the food hygiene issues recently raised by the Environmental Health Officer or the maintenance and cleanliness issues raised by our inspection.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers were caring and supported people in kind and pleasant ways. People who used the service were complimentary about the attitude of the manager and staff, and care that they provided. One relative commented, �It may be a bit tired (the premises), but in what matters it�s amazing, in care, the way staff treat people�. Another relative told us, �They (the staff) are very good actually.�

Is the service responsive?

People�s needs had been assessed and care plans put in place describing their care needs. These records included information about people�s individual needs and preferences. There was evidence that people�s records had been reviewed and that other professionals were involved in people�s care appropriately. Where we have raised concerns the manager has listened and kept us informed of the actions they are taking.

Is the service well-led?

There was a registered manager in place, but they were often working as the senior carer on shift, rather than as a supernumerary manager. This had impacted on the time they had available to oversee the management and leadership of the service. Staff we spoke with indicated that the nominated individual (official company representative) did not visit the home very often and the records of the directors �monthly� monitoring visits indicated that they had only completed three official monitoring visits in the last year. Concerns have recently been raised about the home's performance in some areas by the local authority, environmental health and ourselves. This indicated that the provider was not proactive in identifying and resolving issued independently.