Colwill Lodge

Updated 24 May 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was a comprehensive inspection and was unannounced. The inspection took place on 16 April 2018 and was carried out by one adult social care inspector and an expert 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. This expert-by-experience had experience of caring for a person with a learning and physical disability. During this inspection there were 62 people accessing the service over varying periods receiving personal care. We do not regulate the care for people who do not receive the regulated activity of personal care.

Before the inspection we reviewed previous inspection reports and other information we held about the home including any notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

During the inspection we looked at six people's care plans, three staff records and other records in relation to the running of the home. We spoke with two assistant managers, the service manager for Plymouth City Council and five members of staff including a residential support worker and the clerical officer. We also telephoned four parent/carers of people who use the service during the day to ask them about their experience of the care provided at the service. The registered manager was not on duty during our inspection. During our inspection 14 people were out for the day carrying on their usual activities, such as day services in the community. We spent time with the one person who remained in the service during the day. They were non-verbal but we were able to communicate with them using their preferred method with support from their care worker.

Updated 24 May 2018

Colwill Lodge provides accommodation and personal care for people living with and/or a learning disability/ physical disability for up to 15 people on a respite basis. People live at the service usually for short arranged periods on a regular basis or for longer whilst suitable permanent accommodation is sought. People carry on their weekly activities during their stay therefore there are rarely people at the service during the day. The service is owned and operated by Plymouth City Council and at the time of our inspection approximately 75 people accessed the respite service. We looked at records relating to the 62 people who received personal care. There are 10 beds for respite care and 5 independent living flats.

At our last inspection in February 2016, we rated the service good overall with the area of responsive rated as requires improvement. We carried out a focussed responsive inspection in July 2017 and found the area of responsive was still rated as requires improvement. During this inspection in April 2018 we looked at whether the areas noted in responsive had been addressed. We had found in July 2017 that some people still did not always have care plans in place to help

provide guidance and direction to staff about how to meet their needs. We found in April 2018 that there had been a lot of work carried out to ensure all care plans had been devised so that staff could follow individualised information and meet people’s needs consistently.

At this inspection we found the evidence relating to other areas continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.