You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 October 2017

This inspection took place on 9 and 14 August 2017 and was unannounced. We last inspected the home on 18 and 25 May 2016 when we found the provider to be in breach of one regulation of the Health and Social care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, in relation to safe care and treatment. We also found the provider to be in breach of two regulations of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 in regards to failure to notify the Commission of the death of a person and other incidents.

George Mason Lodge is a care home registered to provide accommodation, personal care and support for up to 39 people, some of whom were living with dementia, mental health illness or had older people care needs. At the time of our inspection, 37 people were living in the home.

George Mason Lodge is a purpose built care home with 39 bedrooms across three floors with bathroom and shower facilities, and dining and lounge areas on each floor. The ground floor is a short stay and rehabilitation unit, and the first two floors accommodate people on a long term and permanent care placements. The first two floors are accessible via lift. The home has kitchen and laundry facilities and an accessible and secured garden with a patio area. There is a hair-dresser facility and a separate activity room that also doubles up as a staff training room.

The service had a registered manager who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC 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.

At the inspection on 9 and 14 August 2017, we found that the provider had made sufficient improvements and were no longer in breach of legal requirements.

People using the service told us they were happy living at the service and felt safe there.

The service maintained effective safeguarding procedures and staff knew signs of abuse and how to report abuse. People’s accidents and incidents were effectively monitored and systems were in place to learn from them to prevent recurrences. Risks involved in people’s care were appropriately identified and assessed, and people’s risk assessments gave information on how to mitigate those risks. Staff had a good understanding of risks involved in supporting people and how to provide safe care. The service regularly reviewed risks to people. Staffing rotas demonstrated the service had sufficient staffing levels to meeting people’s individual needs and people, relatives and staff confirmed this. People received safe medicines support. The service kept accurate records of medicines administered by staff that were well trained. The service was clean and met health and safety, fire safety and infection control requirements.

People were happy with the food and choices offered at the service and their nutrition and hydration needs were met. Staff kept detailed daily care records on how people were supported with their food and fluid intake. The service worked closely with various health and care professionals to support people with their health and care needs. People were supported to access GP services.

The service followed safe recruitment practices. Staff received induction and refresher training, and records confirmed this. Staff received regular one-to-one supervisions and yearly appraisal.

The service operated within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People told us staff asked their consent before supporting them.

People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring and listened to their needs. Staff recognised people’s need to remain independent and encouraged and supported them wherever possible to remain independent.

People

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 October 2017

The service was safe. People told us they felt safe with staff. Staff knew how to identify and report abuse. The service assessed and mitigated risks involved in supporting people and provided sufficient information to staff on how to manage those risks. The service maintained accurate accidents, incidents and safeguarding records, and there were systems in place to learn from them.

People were appropriately supported with medicines management. The service maintained suitable infection control practices. People were happy with the cleanliness of the service and there were up-to-date health and safety records and checks in place.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 October 2017

The service was effective. People's individual health and care needs were met by staff who were well trained. Staff told us they felt well supported and received regular supervision. The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People enjoyed the food and their dietary needs were met. Staff recorded people's food and fluid intake in their daily care logs. The service worked closely with health and care professionals to meet people's health needs. People were happy with the home's layout and found it easy to access various rooms.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 October 2017

The service was caring. People told us they were supported by staff that were caring and kind, and listened to them and their needs patiently. People and their relatives were involved in care planning.

People were supported to remain as independent as they could. Staff recognised and respected people's religious and spiritual beliefs and supported them when requested. People told us staff treated them with dignity and respect. Staff had end of life care discussions with people and people's care plans detailed information on their end of life care and funeral wishes.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 October 2017

The service was responsive. People told us they received personalised care by staff who understood their likes and dislikes. People and their relatives told us the service was responsive to their changing needs.

The service provided a range of activities and people were happy those activities. People and their relatives were encouraged to raise concerns and complaints and these were addressed appropriately by the management. The service kept accurate records of people's complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 5 October 2017

The service was well-led. People, their relatives, staff and health and care professionals spoke highly of the registered manager. Staff told us they were well supported and people told us they enjoyed living at the service.

The registered manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities and maintained effective governance. The service had good systems for assessing and monitoring the quality and safety of the service. The registered manager worked well with local and national organisations to improve the quality of service.