Background to this inspection
Updated
2 February 2018
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Clevedon Lodge is a ‘care home.’ People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, both of which we looked at during this inspection.
This inspection took place on 11 January 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector.
Before our unannounced inspection, we checked the information we held about Clevedon Lodge. This included notifications the provider sent us about incidents that affect the health, safety and welfare of people who lived at the home. We also contacted other health and social care organisations such as the commissioning department at the local authority and Healthwatch Blackpool. Healthwatch Blackpool is an independent consumer champion for health and social care. This helped us to gain a balanced overview of what people experienced living at Clevedon Lodge.
Furthermore, we looked at the Provider Information Return (PIR) the provider had sent us. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
Additionally, we spoke with a range of individuals about this home. They included four people who lived at Clevedon Lodge. We further discussed care with two staff members and the registered manager.
We observed care and support in communal areas and looked around the building to check environmental safety and cleanliness. This enabled us to determine if people received the care and support they needed in an appropriate environment.
We examined care records of two people who lived at the home. This process is called pathway tracking and enables us to judge how well Clevedon Lodge understands and plans to meet people's care needs and manage any risks to people's health and wellbeing. We checked documents in relation to three staff members. We also looked at records about staff training and support, as well as those related to the management and safety of Clevedon Lodge.
Updated
2 February 2018
Clevedon Lodge delivers care and support for a maximum of six adults with a range of mental health problems. At the time of our inspection, five people lived at the home. Clevedon Lodge is situated in a residential area of Blackpool close to the promenade. The home has two communal lounges, one of which contains a dining area, and a kitchen. There were sufficient facilities for people to meet their personal care needs.
At the last inspection on 07 October 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection, we found the service remained ‘Good’.
During this inspection visit, people we spoke with said they felt safe whilst living at the home. One person stated, “I absolutely feel safe.” Care files we looked at contained risk assessments intended to protect people against unsafe or inappropriate care. The provider had a good system to review accidents and whether there were lessons to learn to improve the service. Staff displayed a good understanding of safe infection control standards to ensure people lived in a hygienic environment.
We saw information about safeguarding and whistleblowing was made available to staff, people and visitors on a display board in the hall. One staff member commented, “I would have no hesitation to whistleblow poor practice.”
We found the registered manager ensured staff had medication training to underpin their skills. They completed regular audits of associated procedures to maintain safe medicines management.
The management team had recently recruited staff in ways that protected people from the employment of unsuitable personnel. We saw there were sufficient numbers of skilled employees to continuously meet people’s needs. A staff member stated, “It’s great here, I can be more one-to-one with people I have the time to support residents.” Staff files we looked at showed employees completed regular training, which was refreshed to update them to new evidence-based practices.
We found people were offered a choice of nutritious meals and they told us they enjoyed their food. Care records we saw included a ‘dietary requirements’ document that covered special diets, medical conditions, allergies, swallowing difficulties, hydration needs and preferences.
People commented staff had a kind, respectful attitude. One person told us, “In all the homes I’ve been in, the staff here are by far the best, they really care.” People said they were fully involved in their care planning and able to explore their mental, physical and social needs with experienced staff.
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.
Care files we reviewed included details about people’s backgrounds, choices and preferences to support and treatment. This guided staff to provide person-centred care based upon each person’s individuality.
Records we looked at contained confirmation of the management team completing regular quality assurance audits. People were complementary about the management team and expressed the home was well run. The provider sought people’s views and experiences of life at the home.