You are here

Connie Lewcock Resource Centre Good

Reports


Review carried out on 8 July 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Connie Lewcock Resource Centre on 8 July 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Connie Lewcock Resource Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 4 December 2018

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 26 April 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 26 and 27 April 2016 and was unannounced. This means the provider did not know we were coming. We last inspected Connie Lewcock Resource Centre in June 2014. At that inspection we found the service was meeting the legal requirements in force at the time.

Connie Lewcock Resource Centre is a 23 bed care service that provides short stay care for older people who require community rehabilitation or emergency care in crisis situations. At the time of our inspection there were 20 people staying at the centre.

The service did not have a registered manager and we have followed this up with the provider. 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.

We found that people’s care and support was delivered safely in a clean and comfortable environment. Risks to personal safety had been assessed and action was taken to protect people from avoidable harm. Staff were trained in recognising and preventing abuse and there had been no safeguarding concerns raised about the service.

A thorough recruitment process was followed to make sure only suitable staff were employed. There were enough skilled and experienced staff to provide people with safe and consistent care. Staff were given appropriate training and support to equip them to meet people’s needs effectively.

People were well supported in maintaining or improving their health and welfare. Arrangements were made for people to access a full range of health care services and for prescribed medicines to be given safely. Nutritional needs were monitored and dietetic advice was obtained when necessary. A varied and balanced diet was offered and people told us they enjoyed the food.

The service worked within the principles of mental capacity law and sought people’s consent to care and treatment. People were consulted about and involved in making decisions about the care they received.

Staff treated people respectfully and were kind and caring in their approach. People were afforded privacy, cared for in a dignified way, and supported to be as independent as possible. Systems were in place which encouraged people to express their views about their care and the service in general.

People had personalised care plans which addressed how their needs would be met. Care was kept under weekly review and was aimed at supporting people to return to their own homes. A programme of social and therapeutic activities was made available to help people stay active and meet their social needs.

The management team provided leadership within the service and were committed to providing an open and inclusive culture. Any comments, suggestions or complaints were taken seriously and acted on. Methods had been established to routinely monitor the quality of the service and make sure any identified improvements were implemented.

Inspection carried out on 26 June 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask;

� Is the service safe?

� Is the service effective?

� Is the service caring?

� Is the service responsive?

� Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found -

Is the service safe?

Risks were properly assessed and managed to protect people from harm and make sure their care was delivered safely.

We found action had been taken on each of the areas of concern identified at our last inspection. These included improved ways of meeting people�s nutritional and social needs being introduced, and addressing issues with the heating system at the centre.

The service had appropriate and safe arrangements for assisting people with their prescribed medicines.

Is the service effective?

People�s care and treatment was well planned and kept under close review to check it remained effective. People staying at the centre told us they were happy with the care and support they received. One person said, �They�ve helped me so much, I�m hoping I�ll soon be well enough to go home�, and another person commented, �The staff are all very good, they do a wonderful job�.

Suitable arrangements had been made to support staff by ensuring they were given training updates and had their performance supervised and appraised.

Is the service caring?

Care was provided in line with individuals� needs, and with clear aims of enabling people to return to their own homes, wherever possible. People described the staff as caring and a health professional told us he was �very impressed� with the staff team and how they supported people.

Is the service responsive?

People�s care was planned following a full assessment of their needs and independent skills when they came to stay at the centre. Each person�s care and treatment was then reviewed at weekly intervals by a team of professionals, and adapted in response to any changes in their needs.

Is the service well-led?

The manager and staff had good understanding of the ethos of the service and their roles and responsibilities. There were thorough quality assurance processes in place to check that standards were maintained. These included routinely asking people about their care and for feedback on the quality of the service they received.

Inspection carried out on 17 December 2013

During a routine inspection

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Stephen Scott's name appears because he was still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

People had their needs assessed and the information was used to develop care plans. We found that people did not have their social needs adequately met and that people were not always protected from some identified risks.

People were asked to give their consent before receiving any care. One person said, �The staff are wonderful and always knock first before coming into my room�, and, �Staff always ask me first.�

People told us the building was not comfortable as the temperature was too cold. One person commented, �It (the care) is wonderful but it is cold.� Another person commented, �It is freezing on a night-time.�

We found from reviewing training records that some staff had not completed all of their mandatory training requirements.

People were happy with the care they received. People said: �I can�t fault anything�; �I would recommend this place�; �I find it excellent, everyone is so nice and doing their job so well. I have come along leaps and bounds. They concentrate on getting you better�, and, �I am very happy. I heard good reports before I came and they have proved it.�

Inspection carried out on 6 September 2012

During a routine inspection

The eight people we spoke with were positive about the care and support they received. They said they were satisfied with the food. One person said the place was top notch. They also said the staff were excellent.They said there was plenty to do if people wanted to become involved in the activities and entertainment. People said communication was good and meetings were held to ask them their opinions.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)