You are here

Valley Lodge Care Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 5 January 2019

The inspection took place on 23 and 24 October 2018 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in November 2015 the service was rated as good overall. One area requiring improvement was in the reporting of incidents, which the provider has since addressed.

As a result of this inspection we have made one requirement. This is where we have identified a statutory breach of regulations. The breach in regulation requires the provider to make sure the service complies with legislation designed to protect people’s rights, in this case the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Valley 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.

The service provides accommodation and personal care and support to a maximum of 47 older people, including those who are living with dementia, in one adapted building. There were 31 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service has a registered manager. 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.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; however, the policies and systems in the service had not always supported this practice and legislation designed to protect people’s rights had not been followed.

There was a friendly atmosphere in the home and staff supported people in a kind and caring way that took account of their individual needs and preferences.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from harm. Staff were trained in how to recognise and respond to abuse and understood their responsibility to report any concerns. Risks to people were individually assessed and action taken to minimise the likelihood of harm.

There were suitable systems in place to ensure the safe storage and administration of medicines. Medicines were administered by staff who had received appropriate training.

Safe recruitment practices were followed and appropriate checks had been undertaken, which made sure only suitable staff were employed to care for people in the home. There were sufficient numbers of experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

Staff received an induction and on-going training to support them to meet the needs of people using the service.

People received regular and on-going health checks and support to attend appointments. They were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs and to make informed choices about what they ate.

The service was responsive to people’s needs and staff listened to what they said. Staff were prompt to raise issues about people’s health and people were referred to health professionals when needed. People could be confident that any concerns or complaints they raised would be dealt with.

The provider and registered manager were promoting an open, empowering and inclusive culture within the service. There were a range of systems in place to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 January 2019

The service was safe.

Risks to people were individually assessed and action taken to minimise the likelihood of harm.

People received their medicines at the right time and in the right way to meet their needs.

People and their families felt the home was safe and staff were aware of their responsibilities to safeguard people.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and recruiting practices ensured that all appropriate checks had been completed.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 5 January 2019

The service was not always effective.

Staff sought verbal consent from people before providing care. However, the provider had not always followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. They had access to health professionals and other specialists if they needed them.

Staff received an induction and on-going training to support them to meet the needs of people using the service.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 January 2019

The service was caring.

Staff developed caring and positive relationships with people and treated them with dignity and respect.

People and relatives commented about the homely atmosphere in the home.

Staff were kind and caring and knew people well.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 January 2019

The service was responsive.

The service was responsive to people’s needs and any concerns they had.

Care plans and activities were personalised and focused on individual needs and preferences.

The service involved people and their representatives in planning and reviewing their care and had a process in place to deal with any complaints.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 5 January 2019

The service was not always well-led.

The provider and registered manager had not identified where areas of practice were not compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The provider and registered manager demonstrated an open and inclusive style of leadership. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and there were clear lines of accountability within the service.

The quality of the care and treatment people experienced was monitored and action taken to promote people's safety and welfare.