Archived: Gallimore Lodge

At the last inspection on 29 June 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’ and was meeting the fundamental standards. There were seven people using the service at the time of the inspection.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

• Suitable arrangements were in place to keep people safe. Policies and procedures were followed by staff to safeguard people and staff understood these measures. Risks to people were identified and managed to prevent people from receiving unsafe care and support. The service was appropriately staffed to meet the needs of the people using the service. People received their medication as prescribed and in a safe way. Recruitment procedures were followed to ensure the right staff were employed.

• Staff had a thorough induction to carry out their role and responsibilities effectively. Staff had the right competencies and skills to meet people’s needs and received regular training opportunities. Suitable arrangements were in place for staff to receive regular formal supervision and an annual appraisal of their overall performance. People were supported to have as much choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People’s nutritional and hydration needs were met and they were provided with drinks and snacks throughout the day. People received appropriate healthcare support as and when needed from a variety of professional services.

• People were treated with care, kindness, dignity and respect. People received a good level of care and support that met their needs and preferences. Staff had a good knowledge and understanding of people’s specific care and support needs and how they wished to be cared for and supported.

• Support plans were in place to reflect how people would like to receive their care and support, and covered all aspects of a person's individual circumstances. Social activities were available for people to enjoy and experience both ‘in house’ and within the local community. Information about how to make a complaint was available and people’s representatives told us they were confident to raise issues or concerns.

• Suitable arrangements were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. There was a positive culture within the service that was person-centred, open and inclusive. The service sought people’s and others views about the quality of the service provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary, please read the full report.

This was an unannounced inspection. We could not speak with people who lived at the home due to their needs. However, we observed their care and spoke with four members of staff. We looked at written records, which included copies of people's care records, medication systems and quality assurance documentation.

Is the service safe?

We found the home to be warm and clean. The accommodation was adapted to meet the needs of people living there and was appropriately maintained.

The provider had systems in place that ensured the safe receipt, storage, administration and recording of medicines. There were proper processes in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Is the service effective?

We saw that care plans and risk assessments were informative and up to date. Staff we spoke with were familiar with their contents, which enabled them to deliver appropriate and safe care.

People were cared for by staff who were properly trained and supported to develop professionally.

Is the service caring?

We could not speak with people who lived at the home due to their communication needs. However, we observed their care and we witnessed the attention that people received from staff. Staff were friendly, were attentive to people's needs and people were treated with dignity and respect.

One member of staff said, "I absolutely love working here. Everyone's so friendly, the manager supports us well and I think the people who live here get very well looked after."

Is the service responsive?

Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed. The provider undertook a range of regular checks to ensure equipment was functioning correctly and made changes and repairs when necessary.

Four staff members told us that the manager was approachable and they would have no difficulty speaking to them if they had any concerns.

Is the service well led?

Four staff members said that they felt well supported by the management team and they were able do their jobs safely. They reported that they had regular supervision and training.

The provider had a range of quality monitoring systems in place to ensure that care was being delivered appropriately by staff, that the service was continuously improving and that people were satisfied with the service they were receiving.

Our observations suggested that people living at the service were happy, that they felt safe and were well cared for. It was evident that the people who used the service had a good relationship and rapport with the staff who supported them.

People's health and personal care needs were assessed. There were detailed support plans in place for staff to follow so as to ensure that people were supported safely and in accordance with their individual preferences and wishes. Staff spoken with demonstrated a good understanding of individual's health and personal care needs, and how each person wished to be supported.

The provider was able to demonstrate that a robust staff recruitment policy and procedure was in place and followed to ensure that people living at the service were kept safe. We found that medication practices and procedures were well managed and appropriate systems were in place for complaints management.

We found that further improvements were required by the provider to ensure that staff working at Gallimore Lodge communicate effectively and engage with people who use the service. We also found that improvements were required to ensure that appropriate arangements were in place for the recording of medicines. Our visit also highlighted that although staff had received regular opportunities to participate in training and supervision, annual appraisals were overdue in most cases.