Archived: Lona Lodge

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask; is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Was the service safe?

People who use the services were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. They told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and the process for submitting an application. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. The manager ensured there was sufficient staff on duty who were appropriately qualified to meet the support needs of people who used the services. This helped to ensure that people's needs were met.

Was the service effective?

People who use the services health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in their care and support planning. People told us that they had been involved in their care and support plans and that the plans reflected their needs. We inspected three people's care files. They included essential information about the person, needs and risk assessment information, care plans, records of health care appointments, as well as records of keyworker meetings.

Staff received regular and appropriate training and supervision to ensure they were able to meet the specific needs of people using the service.

Was the service caring?

People who use the services were assisted by kind and supportive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and professionalism and gave appropriate encouragement when supporting the people who use the services. The three people we talked to said the staff treated them well and respected their privacy. One person told us, 'I like living here, staff ask me what I want to do in the day, usually to do with my care plan'. Somebody else said, 'Staff are kind and my key-worker helps me where I need it'. We observed that staff knocked on the people's doors before entering their rooms and asked if it was convenient for them to go in.

People who use the services told us they attended regular house meetings where they were able to discuss relevant issues and make decisions about what they wanted to do. We saw from reading the minutes of these meetings that meeting the wishes and preferences of people was the main priority. This reflected the caring environment that we found on the day of the inspection.

Was the service responsive?

People who use the services met weekly with their keyworker to review their care and support. This was important as this helped staff understand what people wanted or needed or how they were feeling.

All the people who use the services we spoke with knew how to make a complaint. There was an appropriate complaints procedure in place and staff indicated that they would be supportive of anyone who needed to complain. People can therefore be assured that complaints would be investigated and action taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

We saw that the service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure that people were supported in a co-ordinated way. It was clear that the main objective was to support people in relation to maintaining and developing their independence.

The manager carried out regular checks to assess and monitor the quality of services provided and took appropriate action to address any issues or concerns raised about service quality.

The views of people who use the services, their representatives and staff were listened to by the manager. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service.

Staff and people we spoke with were clear about what to do in case of emergencies, and correctly located instructions, first aiders and emergency equipment.

We saw people were protected against identifiable risks of acquiring infection through appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene.

People using the service told us they had contact with their allocated key worker at least four times a week which helped build trust and confidence. We saw effective recruitment processes and a range of professional development activities ensuring the right skills, experience and qualifications of staff.

There were effective systems in place for handling complaints which were used and understood by people using the service, their relatives, and staff.

We saw that people were protected against the risk of inappropriate care and treatment through information communicated in personalised and other records, and that documents were securely stored.