You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 May 2018

Southmoor 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, and both were looked at during this inspection. Southmoor Lodge provides personal care in one adapted building for up to 40 older people, including some who may be living with dementia.

At our last inspection in January 2017 we rated the service as Requires Improvement. People who used the service were not fully protected from harm or abuse or risks associated with unsafe or ineffective care. The provider did not have effective arrangements for service monitoring, evaluation and improvement when required. These were breaches of Regulations 11, 12, 13 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Following the last inspection we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the service. This was because the provider needed to improve the key question about how they ensure the service is safe, effective and well led. This was the first time the service was rated as Requires Improvement. At this inspection we found the provider had made improvements to meet the relevant requirements.

We carried out this inspection on 12 March 2018. The inspection was unannounced. There were 23 people living at the service. We rated the service as Good.

There was a registered manager at the time of our inspection. 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 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People felt safe and they received safe care at the service. People were protected from the risk of harm or abuse by sufficient staff who were safely recruited.

Staff understood people’s safety needs associated with their care, environment and any medicines they needed to take, which were detailed in their written care plans for staff to follow. Staff supported people safely and consistently when they provided their care and in the least restrictive way. This helped to reduce any known risks to people’s safety.

The environment and care equipment was clean, well maintained and free from observable hazards to people’s safety. Staff were provided with relevant equipment, guidance and training, which they used and followed to help ensure this. Emergency contingency plans were in place for staff to follow for likely foreseen emergencies to ensure people’s safety, which they understood.

People received effective care from staff who were trained and supported to ensure this.

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.

Staff understood people’s health conditions, related care needs and supported people to maintain and improve their health and nutrition. This was done in consultation with relevant external health professionals and staff followed their instructions for people’s care when required.

People were supported in the way they preferred and needed to eat and drink sufficient amounts they enjoyed, which met with their dietary needs and choices.

Environmental facilities provided sufficient space, relevant aids and adaptations for people to move around safely and as independently as possible. People were comfortable and satisfied with their own rooms, which they could personalise to their own taste.

Staff understood and promoted the principles of equality, dignity, choice and rights when they provided people’s care. Staff were kind, caring and compassionate and had established good rapport and relationships with people and their relatives.

Peopl

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 May 2018

The service was safe.

People received safe care from staff who were safely recruited. People were protected from the risk of harm or abuse by staff who understood how to recognise abuse and act in any event.

Risks to people’s safety were assessed before they received care and regularly reviewed. Staff understood people’s safety needs, their related care requirements and to ensure people received informed and least restrictive care

Arrangements to ensure environmental and equipment cleanliness, together with emergency contingency planning helped to ensure people’s safety at the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 May 2018

The service was effective.

People received effective care from staff who were trained, knowledgeable and supervised to ensure this.

Staff obtained people’s consent or appropriate authorisation for their care. Where people were unable to consent to their care, best interest decisions were ensured.

People were consistently supported to maintain and improve their health and nutrition in the way which met their needs and preferences.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 May 2018

The service was caring.

People equality, dignity, choice and rights were consistently promoted by staff who were caring. Staff knew people well and established good relationships with them and their relatives.

People and relatives were involved in agreeing care and daily living arrangements at the service and informed to access independent advocacy services if they needed to.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 May 2018

The service was responsive.

People received timely, individualised care, which promoted their independence, known daily living and lifestyle preferences. People were supported to engage in home life and with the local community as they chose.

People were informed to make a complaint if they needed to. Complaints findings and service feedback obtained was used to help inform and make care and service improvements when required.

Staff knew people well and communicated with them in meaningful way, which they understood. People were supported with empathy and compassion at the end of their life. Staff understood and followed recognised personal care principles and related care measures concerned with people’s end of life care; in consultation with relevant external health professionals.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 May 2018

The service was well-led.

The service was well managed. The provider’s service oversight and related systems and management improvements made since our last inspection helped to ensure the quality and safety of people’s care and ongoing service improvement.

Communication and record keeping procedures met with known legal requirements to ensure appropriate information handling and confidentiality.