You are here

Connie Lewcock Resource Centre Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

This inspection took place on 4 December 2018 and was unannounced. This meant the provider and staff did not know we would be visiting.

The service was last inspected in April 2016. At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence 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.

Connie Lewcock Resource Centre 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 works in partnership with Newcastle upon Tyne Hospital Trust. It provides short stay care for up to 24 older people who require community rehabilitation or emergency care in crisis situations. At the time of our inspection 20 people were using the service.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 registered manager was registered in October 2016.

Risks to people using the service were assessed and plans put in place to address them. Plans were in place to support people in emergency situations. The provider had clear and effective infection control processes in place. People were safeguarded from abuse. Medicines were managed safely. The provider and registered manager ensured enough staff were deployed to support people safely. The provider’s recruitment process minimised the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.

Staff were effective at ensuring people received the support they needed and worked very closely with external healthcare professionals to provide this. Staff were supported with regular training, supervision and appraisal. 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. People were supported with food and nutrition. The premises had been adapted for the comfort and convenience of people living there.

People spoke positively about the support they received and described staff as kind and caring. People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff were focussed on promoting people’s independence and helping them return home as soon as possible. Throughout the inspection we saw numerous examples of staff delivering kind and caring support. People were supported to maintain relationships and social connections of importance to them. At the time of our inspection nobody was using an advocate, but policies and procedures were in place to support this where needed.

People received person-centred care based on their assessed needs and preferences. People were supported to communicate effectively and were given information in accessible formats. People were supported to access activities they enjoyed. Clear policies and procedures were in place to investigate and respond to complaints.

Staff spoke positively about the leadership of the registered manager and culture and values of the service. The registered manager had informed CQC of significant events in a timely way by submitting the required notifications. This meant we could check that appropriate action had been taken. The provider and registered manager carried out a number of quality assurance audits to monitor and improve standards at the service. Feedback was sought from people, relatives and staff and was acted o

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The service remains good.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The service remains good.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The service remains good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The service remains good.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The service remains good.