You are here

Heartlands Care Limited t/a Lanrick House Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 15 June 2017

This inspection took place on 25 April 2017 and was unannounced. At the last inspection, the service was meeting the legal requirements and was rated as good.

Heartlands Care Lanrick House provides accommodation and or personal care for up to 32 people, some of whom may be living with dementia. On the day of our inspection 20 people were living at the home.

There was a registered manager at the service but they had recently resigned from their post. 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. A new manager had recently started working at the service, who told us they would be starting the process of registering with us. We were also assisted by the regional manager who was working at the service on the day of our inspection.

We have made a recommendation that the provider considers ways to improve their quality assurance systems to support the drive for continuous improvement.

People felt safe living at the home and their relatives were confident they were well cared for. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were assessed and managed and staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from the risk of abuse. People received their medicines when they needed them. There were sufficient, suitably recruited staff to keep people safe and promote their wellbeing. Staff received training and ongoing support to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to make their own decisions and where they needed help, decisions were made in their best interest and involved people who were important to them. Where people were restricted of their liberty in their best interests, for example to keep them safe, the provider had applied for the appropriate approval. Any conditions detailed in the associated approvals were documented and understood by staff.

Staff had caring relationships with people and promoted people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged them to maintain their independence. People had sufficient amounts to eat and drink and were able to access the support of other health professionals to maintain their day to day health needs. People were offered opportunities to join in social activities and were encouraged to follow their hobbies and interests. People were supported to maintain important relationships with friends and family and staff kept them informed of any changes.

People and their relatives felt able to raise any concerns or complaints and were asked for their views on the quality of the service. Staff felt supported by their colleagues and the management team.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 15 June 2017

The service was safe.

Risk to people’s safety and wellbeing were assessed and managed and staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe. There were sufficient staff and the provider followed recruitment procedures to ensure they were suitable to work with people. People received their medicines as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 15 June 2017

The service was effective.

Staff understood their responsibilities to support people to make their own decisions and where people were being deprived of their liberty in their best interests, the correct authorisations had been applied for. Staff received the training and support they needed to care for people. People received sufficient amounts to eat and drink and had their health needs met.

Caring

Good

Updated 15 June 2017

The service was caring.

Staff had caring relationships with people and respected their privacy and dignity. People were able to make decisions about their daily routine and staff encouraged them to remain as independent as possible. People were supported to maintain important relationships with family and friends who were kept informed of any changes.

Responsive

Good

Updated 15 June 2017

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care from staff who knew their needs and preferences. People were supported to take part in activities and follow their interests. People’s care was reviewed to ensure it remained relevant and relatives were invited to attend reviews. People felt able to raise concerns and complaints and were confident they would be acted on.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 15 June 2017

The service was not consistently well led.

Improvements were needed to ensure the systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service were consistently effective in identifying shortfalls and driving improvement. People and their relatives were encouraged to give their feedback on the service and where possible this was used to make improvements. Staff felt supported by their colleagues and the management team.