We carried out a review of the data available to us about Friars Lodge on 6 July 2023. 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 Friars Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
Friars Lodge is a residential home that provides personal care for up to 20 people with a range of care needs, including dementia. The service provides accommodation over two floors. This consists of communal areas and individual bedrooms. At the time of the inspection, 15 people were living at the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People said they received good care, and they were supported well by staff to meet their needs. People said staff were kind, caring, friendly, and they provided care in a respectful manner. People said the service was good and they were happy living there. They said staff and the registered manager were approachable and helpful. Staff said the service was a good place to work in and for people to live in. One staff member described it as a ‘home from home’.
People received safe care and they were protected from harm. Staff knew how to identify and report concerns. Potential risks to people’s health and wellbeing were managed well. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to provide safe care. People were supported to take their medicines safely. Lessons were learnt from incidents to prevent recurrence. Staff had the right equipment and skills to prevent the spread of infections.
Staff were trained well to meet people's needs. Their competence to support people well was regularly assessed. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. Staff supported people to access healthcare services when required. This helped people to maintain their health and well-being.
Staff were respectful in how they interacted with people and supported them. 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 received personalised care to meet their needs. Care plans contained enough information about people’s needs and this guided staff on how to support people well. Complaints were followed up and improvements made when required. Staff had records of people’s wishes about how they wanted to be supported at the end of their lives.
The provider had systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service. The registered manager and staff were motivated to provide the best service they could for people and their relatives. They were keen to learn and take steps to further improve the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 14 November 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
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 protected from avoidable harm or abuse. Risks to each person had been assessed and managed appropriately. The service followed safe recruitment procedures and there were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.
There were safe systems for the management of people’s medicines and they received their medicines regularly and on time.
People were supported by staff who were skilled and knowledgeable in their roles.
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’s nutritional needs were met and they were supported to have enough to eat and drink. They were seen by their doctors or other health care professionals when required.
The experiences of people who lived at the care home were positive. They were treated with respect and their privacy and dignity was promoted. People and relatives were involved in decisions about the care and support they received.
People had their care needs assessed, reviewed and supported in a responsive way. They were supported to pursue their social interests and hobbies and to participate in activities provided at the home.
There was an effective complaints procedure in place. There were systems in place to seek the views of people, their relatives and other stakeholders. Regular checks and audits relating to the quality of service delivery were carried out.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
Friars Lodge provides accommodation, care and support for up to 20 people with a variety of care needs including chronic conditions and physical disabilities. Some people may be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 16 people living at the service.
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 felt safe in the service. Staff understood their responsibilities with regards to safeguarding people and were aware of the processes in place for reporting concerns. They had received effective safeguarding training.
Personalised risk assessments were in place that gave guidance to staff on how individual risks to people could be minimised. Medicines were stored appropriately, managed safely and audits completed.
There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people's needs. Safe recruitment processes were in place and had been followed to ensure that staff were suitable for the role they had been appointed to prior to commencing work.
Staff were well trained and completed an effective induction programme when they commenced work at the service. Staff were supported in their roles and received regular supervision and appraisals.
People were supported to make choices in relation to their food and drink and a varied menu was offered. People's health care needs were being met and they received support from health and medical professionals when required.
Staff were kind, considerate and friendly. People's privacy and dignity was promoted throughout, their care and consent was gained before any care was provided.
People's needs had been assessed and care plans took account of their individual needs, preferences and choices. Care plans and risk assessments had been regularly reviewed to ensure that they were reflective of people's current needs.
People were encouraged and supported to participate in a range of activities and received relevant information regarding the services available to them.
The service was led by a registered manager who was visible and approachable. People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the registered manager and their ability to manage the service.
People, relatives and staff knew who to raise concerns with and there was an open culture. People and their relatives were asked for their feedback on the service and comments were encouraged. Quality monitoring systems and processes were used effectively to drive improvements in the service and identify where action needed to be taken.
We carried out this inspection on 19 March 2015 and it was unannounced.
The service provides accommodation, care and support for up 20 older people who have a range of care needs including living with dementia, chronic conditions and physical disabilities. The home has four floors and there is a lift to enable people to access all areas within it. At the time of the inspection, there were 10 people living at the home.
The service has a registered manager who was on leave during the inspection. The deputy manager was managing the service, with the support of the area 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.
The home was not always cleaned to an appropriate standard.
There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to the staff on how risks could be minimised and there were systems in place to safeguard people from the risk of harm.
People’s medicines were managed safely and administered in a timely manner.
The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there were sufficient staff to support people safely. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
The staff had supervision, support and effective training that enabled them to support people well.
People were supported to have sufficient food and drinks in a caring and respectful manner. They were also supported to access other health and social care services when required.
People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans took account of people’s individual needs, preferences, and choices.
People were not always provided with opportunities to pursue their hobbies and interests.
The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people and acted on the comments received to improve the quality of the service.
The registered manager provided stable leadership and managerial oversight. The provider’s quality monitoring processes had been used effectively to drive improvements.
We found the staff and people who used the service had received information about consent. Easy read booklets had been used to provide people with information on their rights and how the service would assist them to retain their independence in making choices.
The care plans contained information on people's nutritional and hydration needs and people were assessed monthly to ensure they maintained a healthy balanced diet. People were weighed monthly and where concerns were identified steps were taken to provide additional nutritional support to increase their calorific intake and keep them hydrated.
The medication system used by the provider was robust and we saw evidenced that staff had been trained to administer medication. The records we looked at reconciled with the records of administration.
Records demonstrated that new staff received a structured induction. All staff received ongoing training so they understood their role. Staff performance and development was monitored by a supervision and appraisal process.
There were robust systems in place to oversee the quality of the service provided and to ensure that the systems in place supported the delivery of quality care.
We observed that people were offered support at a level which encouraged independence and ensured that their individual needs were met. There was a relaxed atmosphere in the home, and the staff were friendly and polite in their approach to people and interacted confidently with them. We spoke with the relatives of two people who lived at Friars Lodge, and both commented on how 'homely' it was.
We noted that people were encouraged to express their views and were involved in planning their care and making decisions about their support and treatment, and how they spent their time. One person said. "I enjoy some quiet time and staff respect that". They also talked about the range of activities and entertainment that was available to them. Within the care files we saw that care documentation had been signed by the individual or a representative, to confirm their involvement and agreement with their particular care needs.
One person said. 'The staff are exceptional; I don't ever want to leave here'.
People looked clean, comfortable and well cared for, and where people needed assistance with personal care this was done in the privacy of their room to protect their dignity.
People told us that they were involved in planning their care and were given choices about all aspects of their lives, including how they spent their time and what they had to eat. Although there were planned activities arranged in the home and people were encouraged to join in, many people told us that they often just preferred to read, knit or chat with their companions in the home.
People had access to a wealth of information relating to the home and other care services available to them.