You are here

Archived: Sara Lodge Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 24 June 2016

We inspected this service on 11 May 2016. We last inspected the home on 25 March 2014 and the service was meeting all the requirements inspected. The inspection was unannounced.

Sara Lodge is registered to provide residential care for up to six people with a learning disability, autistic spectrum disorder or a mental health condition. At the time of the inspection there were two people receiving support as part of the residential care home. The provider also operated a supported living service from the same address. The same staff team and policies covered both services. As the supported living service was inspected within the same month, we have utilised information from both inspections for each report. You can read the report related to the supported living service by selecting the 'all reports' link for Dillan Care Pathway on our website at .

The service had a registered manager who has been registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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.

There was a joyful and lively atmosphere at the home on the day of the inspection. We saw people were treated with dignity and respect by staff and staff told us how important it was to gain people’s consent before offering any care. Staff were able to demonstrate their understanding of the needs and preferences of the people they cared for, and we could see that people were assisted to be as independent as possible. The two people at the home were facilitated to attend a wide range of activities in the community, and we saw that the staff carried out activities with people at the service.

We checked medicines administration charts and found that clear and accurate records were being kept of medicines administered by staff. Care plans were personalised and detailed life histories, individual needs and likes and dislikes were recorded. Risk assessments were up to date and detailed.

There were safeguarding policies and procedures in place, and staff were able to tell us the different types of abuse and the action they would take if they had any concerns.

Staff told us they were supported well and we saw evidence of regular staff supervision and key training had been undertaken.

Staff recruitment processes included checks to confirm people were eligible to work in the UK, Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) security checks and references. We noted that not all references had been verified prior to September 2015, but the provider had improved their processes and paperwork so recruitment processes were now more rigorous.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met. The registered manager had made referrals to the local authority with regards to deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) for both of the people living at the service. One had run out in March 2016, but the provider could show us following the inspect

Inspection areas



Updated 24 June 2016

The service was safe. Staff understood the different types of abuse and what action to take if they had concerns.

There were sufficient numbers of trained staff to meet with people�s individual care needs.

Peoples� money was managed safely and appropriate records were kept.



Updated 24 June 2016

The service was effective. Staff received regular supervision and training.

We could see that people had access to a wide range of health professionals.

People had a choice of menu and individual preferences were catered for.



Updated 24 June 2016

The service was caring. People were treated with dignity and respect.

The service identified and met people�s religious and cultural needs and records contained their personal histories.



Updated 24 June 2016

The service was responsive. People�s care plans were detailed, personalised and up to date.

There were a range of activities people could access at the service and in the community.

There was a complaints procedure in place and complaints� were dealt with appropriately.



Updated 24 June 2016

The service was well-led. People and their relatives told us they found the registered manager and deputy manager approachable.

There were records of audits and checks to monitor the quality of the service.