You are here

Homer Lodge Care Centre Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 February 2019

This inspection took place on 5 December 2018 and was unannounced. Homer lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. It provides accommodation for older people and those with mental health conditions or dementia. The home can accommodate up to people in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection there were 26 people living in the home.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager 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.

The service had previously been rated as ‘requires improvement’ in 2017. At this inspection the service was rated as ‘Good’.

The provider had ensured that there was usually a sufficient number of staff on duty. People told us that they received person-centred care. Sufficient background checks had been completed before new staff had been appointed according to the provider’s policy. A system was in place to carry out suitable quality checks and appropriate checks had been regularly carried out.

There were systems, processes and practices to safeguard people from situations in which they may experience abuse including financial mistreatment. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed, monitored and managed so they were supported to stay safe while their freedom was respected. The environment was clean. Staff followed arrangements to prevent and control infections.

Guidance was in place to ensure people received their medicines when required. Processes were in place to manage medicines.

Where people were unable to make decisions, arrangements were in place to ensure decisions were made in people's best interests. Best interests decisions were specific to the decisions which were needed to be made.

Care was not always delivered in line with current best practice guidance.

Arrangements were in place to ensure staff received training to provide care appropriately and effectively. People were helped to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. People had access to healthcare services so that they received on-going healthcare support.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive ways possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were not treated consistently with dignity and respect. People were usually treated with kindness and compassion and they were given emotional support when needed. They had also been supported to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their care as far as possible. People had access to lay advocates if necessary. Confidential information was kept private.

Information was provided to people in an accessible manner. People had been supported to access a range of activities. People were supported to access local community facilities. The registered manager recognised the importance of promoting equality and diversity. People’s concerns and complaints were listened and responded to improve the quality of care. Arrangements were in place to support people at the end of their life.

The registered manager encouraged a positive culture in the home. Staff had been helped to understand their responsibilities to develop good team work and to speak out if they had any concerns. People, their relatives and members of staff had been consulted about making improvements in the service. There were arrangements for working in partnership with other agencies to support the development of joined-up care.

Further information is in the detai

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 February 2019

The service was safe.

Medicines were managed safely.

Effective arrangements were in place to ensure there were sufficient experienced staff to ensure people were cared for safely.

Arrangements were in place to prevent the spread of infection.

Risks to people�s safety had been consistently assessed, monitored and managed so they were supported to stay safe.

Arrangements were in place to safeguard people against avoidable accidents.

There were systems, processes and practices to safeguard people from situations in which they may experience abuse. Recruitment checks were fully completed.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 February 2019

The service was effective.

The environment was appropriate to meet people's needs.

The provider acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Arrangements were in place to protect people from having their liberty restricted unlawfully.

Staff had received sufficient training and support to assist them to meet the needs of people who used the service.

People had their nutritional needs met. People had access to a range of healthcare services and professionals.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 8 February 2019

The service was not consistently caring.

People did not always have their dignity maintained.

Staff usually responded to people in a kind and sensitive manner.

People were supported to make choices about how care was delivered and care was provided according to people�s choices.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 February 2019

The service was responsive.

Care records were personalised. Reviews had been carried out to ensure records were up to date and reflected people�s current needs.

People had access to a range of activities. People had access to the local community.

The complaints procedure was on display and people knew how to make a complaint.

The provider had arrangements in place to support people at the end of their life.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 February 2019

The service was well led.

Issues identified at previous inspections had been addressed.

Quality assurance processes were effective in identifying shortfalls in the care people received and improving the quality of care. Actions had been taken to ensure any identified issues were addressed and the service improved.

Staff were listened to and felt able to raise concerns. There was an open and supportive culture within the home.

The provider had notified the Care Quality Commission of events in line with statutory requirements. A registered manager was in post.