You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 March 2018

This inspection was undertaken on 17 and 30 January 2018. The first day of this inspection was unannounced and carried out by two inspectors, a medicines inspector and two Experts by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The second day of our inspection was announced and completed by one inspector.

Lydia Eva Court is a care home that is registered to accommodate up to 89 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia, in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection there were 84 people living within the home. People in care homes receive accommodation and 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. The accommodation is over two floors with three separate, smaller units, on each floor. There are a number of communal areas throughout the home and all bedrooms have en-suite facilities. The home also has a number of enclosed

outdoor spaces.

At our last inspection on 1 and 2 December 2016 the service was rated as requires improvement in safe, effective, responsive and well-led. The overall rating was requires improvement. We asked the provider to take action and make improvements to ensure that effective systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. The findings from our inspection on 17 and 30 January 2018 confirmed that appropriate action had been taken and significant improvements had been made.

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 management team used a number of methods to ensure the quality of the service provided was regularly monitored. All aspects of the service were checked regularly by the provider’s senior management team, the registered manager and care staff, in order to identify any areas that needed improvement. Action was taken promptly to address any identified issues.

Risks to people's safety were identified, recorded and reviewed on a regular basis. There was also written guidance for staff to know how to support people to manage these risks. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals to promote people's welfare and safety. Staff also took prompt action to seek professional advice, and acted upon it, where there were concerns about people's mental or physical health and wellbeing.

There were enough staff working in the home to help ensure people's safety. Staff worked well together to ensure people's needs were met safely and appropriately. Proper checks were carried out when new staff were recruited, which helped ensure only staff who were suitable to work in care services were employed. Staff knew how to recognise different kinds of possible abuse and understood the importance of reporting any concerns or suspicions that people were at risk of harm appropriately.

People's medicines were stored and managed safely and administered as the prescriber intended. Staff were appropriately trained and competent to support people with their medicines.

People enjoyed their meals and were provided with sufficient quantities of food and drink. People were also able to choose what they had. If people were identified as possibly being at risk of not eating or drinking enough, staff would follow guidance to help promote people's welfare and input would be sought from relevant healthcare professionals.

Staff were trained well and were competent in meeting people's needs. Staff understood people's backgrounds and preferences and supported people effectively. New staff completed an induct

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 March 2018

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to recognise signs of possible abuse and were confident in the reporting procedure.

Risks to people's safety were assessed and staff understood the action they needed to take to promote people's safety.

There were enough staff to support people safely and appropriate recruitment procedures were followed to ensure prospective staff were suitable to work in the home.

People's medicines were stored and managed safely and administered as the prescriber intended.

People using the service were helped to stay safe and well because the service followed effective procedures for the prevention and control of infection.

The service had effective systems in place to ensure lessons were learned and improvements were made in the event that things went wrong.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 March 2018

The service was effective.

People�s needs and choices were assessed in a way that ensured each person had their individual holistic needs met effectively and without discrimination.

Staff were supported by way of relevant training and supervision to deliver care effectively.

People had sufficient amounts to eat and drink in the home and were supported to maintain a balanced diet.

The service worked well with other professionals and organisations who were also involved in providing people with care and support.

People were supported to maintain their mental and physical health and wellbeing and staff acted promptly to seek advice if people became unwell.

The premises were safe and accessible and people could choose whether they wished to spend their time in the communal areas or a quiet area alone or with visitors.

People�s consent was sought and nobody was being unlawfully deprived of their liberty.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 March 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were caring and kind and promoted people's privacy and dignity.

People were able to make choices about their care and were encouraged and supported to be as independent as possible.

People were supported to maintain relationships with their friends and families and visitors were welcome.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 March 2018

The service was responsive.

People were supported to choose what they wanted to do, how and where they wanted to spend their time.

Assessments were completed prior to admission, to ensure people�s needs could be met and people were involved in planning their care. People�s individual choices and preferences were kept under constant review and plans of care were amended or updated as and when required.

People received care and support to ensure they were comfortable, dignified and pain free at the end of their lives. The service also offered care, support and reassurance to people�s families and friends before and after their loved one died.

People were able to voice their concerns or make a complaint if needed and were listened to with appropriate responses and action taken where possible.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 March 2018

The service was well-led.

There was a registered manager in post and the service ensured CQC�s registration requirements were met and complied with.

The service was well run and communication between the provider, management team, staff, people living in the home and visitors was frequent and effective.

The service promoted a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering.

The provider and management team used a number of methods to ensure the quality of the service provided was regularly monitored. Action was taken promptly to address any identified issues.

The service accessed resources & support in order to develop the staff team and constantly drive improvement.

The service had strong links with the local community and the service worked openly with other services, such as the local authority�s safeguarding team and Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG).