You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 March 2017

The inspection took place on 23 February 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the service is small and we needed to be sure that someone would be in. The care home was last inspected in August 2015 and was rated overall good with requires improvement in the responsive domain.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Eden Lodge’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’

Eden Lodge is a care home situated in Stainforth, Doncaster and is registered to provide residential care for up to ten people with learning disabilities. This is provided on a respite basis. Some rooms have en-suite facilities. There are large gardens to the rear of the property and a small car park at the front of the building. The service is close to local shops and there are good train and bus links into Doncaster town centre. The service is provided by Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council. The registered manager we spoke with told us that approximately 83 people were currently accessing the respite service. Some people use the service for overnight stays and some people stay at Eden Lodge for two weeks while family members have a holiday. Other emergency situations can also be catered for. At the time of the inspection six people were using the service for respite stays.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our last inspection we identified a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in that we found that some checks had not been undertaken in order to ensure there were effective quality monitoring of infection control, care plans and health and safety. We also found that some staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. However, the care records we looked at did not reflect how some decisions and consent were made.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made in the two requires improvement areas and they were fully complaint.

Some people we spoke with had limited verbal communication. However, they very clearly indicated they felt safe and were happy living in the home, liked the staff and did the activities they liked to do.

The support plans were centred on people’s individual needs and contained information about their preferences, backgrounds and interests. People were positive about the different social groups they could attend as well as following their own routines like attending adult social centres which they would normally attend if they were at home. One person told us they used to go to the adult social centres but had lost interest, so they did not attend anymore.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff and there was a programme of training, supervision and appraisal to support staff to meet people’s needs. Procedures in relation to recruitment and retention of staff were robust and ensured only suitable people were employed in the service.

People were encouraged to make decisions about meals, and were supported to go shopping and be involved in menu planning. People’s dietary needs were catered for and we saw clear instructions were followed when a person had involvement from the speech and language therapist (SALT).

Our observations, together with our conversations with people, provided evidence that the service was caring. The staff had a clear understanding of the differing needs of people staying at the home and we saw they responded to people in a caring, sensitive, patient and understanding professional manner.

People had access to a wide range of activities during their stay at Eden Lodge th

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 March 2017

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse correctly. They had a clear understanding of the procedures in place to safeguard people from abuse.

We saw when people needed support or assistance from staff there was always a member of staff available to give this support. There were robust recruitment systems in place to ensure the right staff were employed

Medicines were stored and administered safely. Staff and people that used the service were aware of what medicines to be taken and when.

Individual risks had been assessed and identified as part of the support and care planning process. People were involved where ever possible in the assessment process which enabled them to describe the support they needed to help them retain their independence when they visited Eden Lodge for their respite stay.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 March 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported to have their assessed needs, preferences and choices met by staff that had the necessary skills and knowledge. Staff received regular supervision to ensure they were given the opportunity to discuss their development and training needs.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the staff we spoke with had good knowledge of this.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient to maintain a balanced diet. People were supported to maintain good health, have access to healthcare services and receive on going healthcare support.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 March 2017

The service was caring.

Most people had been involved in deciding how they wanted their care to be given and they told us they discussed this before they stayed at the home.

People told us they were happy with the support they received. We saw staff had a warm rapport with the people they cared for. Relatives spoke positively about the staff at all levels and were happy with the care.

People were treated well by caring staff who respected their privacy, dignity and encouraged their independence.

Staff interacted well with people and provided them with them support they needed.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 March 2017

The service was responsive.

We found that peoples’ needs were thoroughly assessed prior to them staying at the service. Communication with relatives was very good. Family members we spoke with told us that staff always contacted them if there was a problem with their relative during their respite stay at the home.

People were encouraged to retain as much of their independence as possible and those we spoke with appreciated this.

The service had a complaints procedure that was accessible to people who used the service and their relatives. People told us they had no reason to complain as the service was very good.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 March 2017

The service was well led.

The systems that were in place for monitoring quality were effective. Where improvements were needed, these were addressed and followed up to ensure continuous improvement.

People were regularly asked for their views. Regular meetings were used to ensure continued involvement by people living at the home.

Accidents and incidents were monitored monthly by the registered manager to ensure any triggers or trends were identified.