We carried out a review of the data available to us about Auburn Lodge Residential Home 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 Auburn Lodge Residential Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
People had been supported to use technology to keep in touch with family and friends. To promote safe and comfortable external visiting for people and their relatives, the provider had converted a garden building into a visiting pod. The pod used substantial screens to divide the area and visitors were provided with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
The provider had asked for feedback on their handling of the pandemic from people, staff, relatives and professionals. The feedback was positive. One relative wrote, ‘We think you all do a fantastic job. We can't thank you enough.’ A relative we spoke with said, “I think they've been absolutely amazing. It has been pretty strict but for the right reasons.”
Staff had adapted some of their community activities so they could continue within the current restrictions. People had been exchanging letters with local nursery children and participated in an event they put on via video link. The children had gifted homemade bird feeders and paper Valentine’s hearts to the home. A new link and friendship with a local child had also been forged. Thanks to an upgraded television, people had been able to continue an activity with an external provider via video link. During our visit, people were busily engaged and were enjoying their activities and each other’s company.
Staff monitored residents to detect any early symptoms of Covid-19. These checks included twice daily temperature checks. Staff had been trained to use an Oximeter, this gives a reading of oxygen saturation levels in a person’s blood and is useful when discussing a person’s support needs with healthcare professionals.
Where people had medical appointments, they were always accompanied by a staff member. This helped to ensure social distancing was maintained and PPE was worn appropriately. It also helped communication and understanding.
The manager had clear procedures for infection and prevention control in place, which were understood and followed by staff. Staff were required to change on-site, and uniforms were laundered at the home. All staff had received additional training in infection prevention and control.
Auburn Lodge 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. Auburn Lodge accommodates 12 people in one adapted building. At the time of this inspection the home was full and 12 people lived there. The service supported older people. People’s needs varied and we saw that people were able to live independently with staff support while one person was cared for in bed.
Following the last inspection in June 2017, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key question(s) of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led to at least ‘Good.’ The Caring key question was previously rated as ‘Good.’ There were four breaches of Regulation of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in person centred care, consent, safe care and treatment and governance systems. We also found a breach of Regulation 18 (notification of other incidents) of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.
At this inspection we found that the service had improved the rating of all key questions to ‘Good’ and there were no breaches of Regulations.
There was 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.
The management team and staff had worked well to improve the service following the previous inspection. Records had improved and risks to people were now more clearly assessed and actions taken to reduce and mitigate risks had been taken. People were asked for their consent appropriately and at the time of this inspection did not lack mental capacity to make decisions about the day to day care and support they received form the staff and management team. People are 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 needs were assessed and they were involved in the reviews of and any decisions about their care. Staff were kind and they supported people to access healthcare services as they needed them. Systems and processes ensured that people and staff views of the service were captured and accident and incidents were analysed and acted upon by the management team when required to reduce risks for people. People were safeguarded from abuse by staff who understood how to raise any concerns they may have appropriately. We received notifications from the registered manager when they were required to send these to us in law.
People and staff were happy in each other’s company and healthcare professionals spoke highly of the service and abilities of the staff and management team to meet people’s needs safely and compassionately. People were cared for at the end of their lives by a very kind and caring staff and management team.
People were given their medicines safely and were supported by appropriately skilled staff when specialist medicines techniques were required.
The home was clean and well maintained with a pleasant and relaxed atmosphere and a ‘homely’ environment. People were protected from the risks of infection by safe infection control measures. His included the appropriate use of protective equipment such as gloves and aprons by care staff.
People’s rooms were personalised with their own belongings and people were supported t take part in activities that they enjoyed. This included gardening and quizzes as well as other one to one activities for people at the end of their lives. Relationships that were important to people were supported and maintained by the caring staff team who helped people’s loved ones to visit the home to share meal times with their relative.
The service was well managed by a professional and dedicated management team who looked to improve the service received for people.
Auburn Lodge Residential Home is a care home for up to nine older people. If people require nursing care district nurses attend to them at the home. The home is located in the sea side town of Selsey, West Sussex. It provides both permanent and respite placements. At the time of our inspection nine people lived at the home. This included one person who was staying for respite. People’s needs varied. Some people were quite independent and only needed minimal assistance whilst others required assistance with all aspects of their care.
During our inspection the registered manager (who is also the provider) was on leave. 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. In the registered managers absence support to the home was provided by an assistant manager, a trainee manager and a senior care supervisor.
This was the first inspection of the home since it registered with CQC in June 2015. Although generally people told us that they were satisfied with the service provided we found that the registered manager had not ensured the quality and safety of the service was monitored or that action was taken to improve service delivery. Quality assurance systems did not cover all aspects of the service and as a result did not identify the shortfalls we found at the inspection. Assessment and care planning was not robust and did not ensure that people’s needs were managed effectively and responsively. Risks to people’s safety and welfare were not always assessed and action was not always taken to mitigate potential risks. When people sustained injuries that required treatment at hospital the registered manager had not notified us of these in line with her legal responsibilities. Although staff sought peoples consent when delivering care formal consent processes were not being used. The home was not following the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
Despite the above issues, people who lived at the home said that staff were kind and caring and as a result positive relationships had been formed that enhanced their sense of wellbeing. People said that they were treated with respect and dignity. We observed interactions by staff that were genuine, warm, positive, respectful and friendly and people told us this was the norm. People said that the registered manager was approachable and sought their views, listened and acted upon them.
Staffing levels were sufficient to provide safe care. However people commented that they would like more opportunities for staff to spend time talking with them and socialising. Robust recruitment checks were completed to ensure staff were safe to support people.
People said that in the main they were happy with the choice of activities on offer and that they were supported to maintain links with people who were important to them.
Staff were suitably trained and skilled and received training relevant to the needs of people who lived at the home. Staff were supported and received group and one to one supervision. Staff said that the registered manager was a good role model.
People said that they were happy with the medical care and attention they received. People were supported to access health professionals that included GP’s, district nurses, chiropodists and opticians.
People said that the food at the home was good and that their dietary needs were met. There were a variety of choices available to people at all mealtimes. Home cooked meals and cakes were provided by a chef who based the menu on people’s preferences.
Equipment was available in sufficient quantities and used where needed to ensure that people were moved safely and staff practiced safe moving and handling techniques.
Information of what to do in the event of needing to make a complaint was displayed in the home. During our visit we observed staff assessing if people were happy as part of everyday routines that were taking place.