You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 September 2017

This was Laburnum Lodge’s first inspection since registering with the Care Quality Commission. The registered provider has owned other services in the Plymouth area for a number of years.

The inspection took place on 19 August and was unannounced. Laburnum Lodge provides care and accommodation for up to six people with learning disabilities.

The service had 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.

We met and spoke to all six people during our visit. People were not all able to fully verbalise their views and used other methods of communication, for example pictures. We therefore spent time observing people. One person when asked if they were happy at Laburnum Lodge said; “Yes I like living here” and another said; “My room is lovely and I like it here.” A relative said; “If they can’t be at home then they only want to stay here.”

Surveys returned to the service recorded; “The staff are excellent in their professionalism and kindness.” Another said; “They (the staff) all have a very professional open and friendly approach to their work, their residents and visitors” and “[…] is very safe living at Laburnum Lodge. I am very pleased with how Laburnum Lodge is run.”

Staff had completed safeguarding training and further updates were arranged. Staff had a good knowledge of what constituted abuse and how to report any concerns. Staff understood what action they would take to protect people against harm and were confident any incidents or allegations would be fully investigated. Staff confirmed they’d have no hesitation reporting any issues to the registered manager or provider.

The Provider Information Return (PIR) records; “ We hold monthly service user forums where we discuss abuse and bullying ensuring our service users know what the term “abuse" or "bullying" means and if they felt comfortable telling us if they felt they were being bullied. They also have a keep safe book in their room in an easy read version which reminds them what to do if they felt bullied and how to report it. They also have 1-1 meetings monthly with their key workers.”

People who required it had two to one or one to one staffing at certain times. Staff confirmed there were sufficient staff to meet these requirements. Staff had completed appropriate training and had the right skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. New staff completed an Induction programme when they started work and staff competency was assessed. Staff also completed the Care Certificate (A nationally recognised training course for staff new to care) if they did not have any formal care qualifications. People were protected by safe recruitment procedures.

All significant events and incidences were document and analysed. Evaluation of incidents was used to help make improvements and keep people safe. Improvements helped to ensure positive progress was made in the delivery of care and support provided by the staff. Feedback to assess the quality of the service provided was sought from people living in the home, relatives, professionals and staff.

People’s medicines were managed safely. Medicines were stored, given to people as prescribed and disposed of safely. Staff received appropriate training and understood the importance of safe administration and management of medicines. People were supported to maintain good health through regular access to health and social care professionals, such as speech and language therapist.

People’s care records were detailed and personalised to meet individual needs. Staff understood people’s needs and responded when needed. People were not all able to be fully involved with their support plans, therefore family members or a

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 September 2017

This service was safe.

People told us they felt safe.

People received their medicines as prescribed. People’s medicines were administered and managed safely and staff were aware of best practice. Medicines administered were recorded.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of suitable, experienced and skilled staff.

Staff had a good understanding of how to recognise and report signs of abuse.

Risks had been identified and managed appropriately. Risk assessments had been completed to protect people.

People lived in a clean and hygienic environment that had been updated to a high standard.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 September 2017

The service was effective.

People received individual one to one support when required from staff who had the knowledge and training to carry out their role.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff understood the requirements of the act which had been put into practice.

People could access health, social and medical support as needed.

People were supported to maintain a healthy and balanced diet.

People used a range of communication methods.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 September 2017

The service was caring.

Staff were caring, kind and treated people with dignity and respect.

People were involved as much as possible in decisions about the support they received and their independence was respected and promoted. Staff were aware of people’s preferences.

People had formed positive caring relationships with the staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 September 2017

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care.

Staff responded quickly and appropriately to people’s individual needs.

People were supported to undertake activities and interests that were important to them. People made choices about their day to day lives.

There was a complaints procedure available for anybody to access.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 September 2017

The service was well led.

There was an experienced registered manager in post who was approachable.

Staff were supported by the registered manager and registered provider. There was open communication within the staff team and staff felt comfortable raising and discussing any concerns with them.

There were systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service.

People’s views on the service were sought and quality assurance systems ensured improvements were identified and addressed.