You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 July 2018

We inspected Lyle House on 21 and 26 June 2018. This was an unannounced inspection.

At our previous inspection on 16 & 18 May 2017 we found the provider was not meeting regulations in relation to the outcomes we inspected, we found a breach of regulation in relation to Good Governance. At this inspection, we found the provider had met the breach we found at the previous inspection.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Requires Improvement.

At this inspection, the service was rated Good.

Lyle House 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. Lyle House provides personal care for up to 45 older people. The home is arranged over three floors and accommodates some people with a diagnosis of dementia.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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 had been with the provider organisation for a number of years. She had implemented changes which had been received positively by people, relatives and staff. The introduction of a care manager had led to improvements in a number of areas, including the relationship with external health professionals.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe at Lyle House. We received complimentary feedback about the caring nature of staff. Staff that we spoke with were aware of people’s preferences in relation to their personal care and were respectful of peoples religious and cultural support needs.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home. Risk management plans, including ways in which the risk could be managed were in place. Care plans reflected people’s individual needs and were reviewed on a monthly basis which helped to ensure people received the right support.

The provider managed people’s support needs in relation to their medicines and general health. A GP visited the service on a regular basis and appropriate referrals were made to relevant professionals such as community nurses, psychologists and dietitians if people’s needs changed and they needed specialist input.

People’s consent was taken in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, formal capacity assessments were completed and if required, decisions were taken in their best interests. The provider applied for lawful authorisation if restrictions were needed to keep people safe.

There were appropriate recruitment checks in place to ensure suitable staff were employed. These included reference and criminal record checks. There were enough staff employed to meet people’s needs. New staff received appropriate induction training to prepare them for their jobs and regular refresher training was provided to al staff.

People were given information about how and who to complain to. Complaints were recorded and responded to in a timely manner.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service people received. A monthly reporting tool was used to monitor quality indicators such as falls, pressure sores, complaints and safeguardings. The registered and area managers undertook periodic audits that covered a number of areas including infection control, food quality, medicines and care planning. These were reviewed regularly and action taken in response to any concerns identified.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 July 2018

The service had improved to Good.

People received their medicines as prescribed.

Risk assessments included steps to manage the risk and these were proportionate to the level of risk identified.

People told us that they felt safe. Staff received safeguarding training and were aware of reporting procedures.

The provider had robust recruitment checks in place and there were enough staff to meet people�s needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 July 2018

The service had improved to Good.

Care workers received induction and ongoing mandatory training.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People were supported with regards to their health and received appropriate support in relation to their diet.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 July 2018

The service had improved to Good.

People told us that staff were caring.

Care plans contained information related to people�s preferences and cultural needs which staff respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 July 2018

The service had improved to Good.

The provider was responsive to people�s needs which was reflected in the care plans.

Complaints were recorded and acted upon.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 July 2018

The service had improved to Good.

The provider had improved its working relationship with external health professionals.

The provider carried out a number of audits and the results were used to improve the service.