You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Horfield Lodge. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 April 2017

We carried out a comprehensive inspection on 15 and 16 March 2017. At our last inspection in February 2016, we found two breaches of the legal requirements. These related to the safe management of medicines and management of people’s specific hydration needs. The provider sent us an action plan following the inspection. At this inspection we found sufficient actions had been taken to address the breaches.

The inspection was unannounced. Horfield Lodge provides nursing and personal care for up to 75 people. At the time of our inspection there were 68 people living in the home.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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.

People told us they felt safe in the home. They were cared for by staff that had been trained and understood their responsibilities with regard to keeping people safe from avoidable harm and abuse. Risk assessments were completed and risk management plans were in place.

People‘s healthcare needs were met. People were supported to make decisions on a day to day basis. Staff identified when people’s needs changed and they obtained support and guidance from external health care professionals.

Staff demonstrated a kind and caring approach and they treated people with dignity and respect. Staff knew people well and were able to tell us about people’s likes, dislikes and preferred routines which were reflected in their care records.

There was a range of activities that people could participate in and people were enjoying group and one to one activities on the days of our visit. A team of volunteers provided additional support.

People, staff and relatives told us the home was well-managed. People and relatives told us the registered manager was readily accessible and available to them. Staff told us they were well-supported and that the home was a good place to work.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 April 2017

The service was safe.

Staff were deployed in sufficient numbers to meet people’s needs.

Staff had been trained and recognised their role in safeguarding people from harm and abuse.

Arrangements were in place to ensure people received their medicines safely.

Recruitment procedures were in place and appropriate checks were completed before staff started in post.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 April 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate training to carry out their roles. Staff felt supported and their performance was monitored on a regular basis.

The home was meeting the requirements of the Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations.

Staff ensured people’s health care needs were met and that they had access to health care professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 April 2017

The service was caring.

People and relatives told us staff were kind, caring and respectful and we saw people being treated with compassion and dignity.

Staff provided care in accordance with people’s individual needs, wishes preferences and choices.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 April 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans were person centred and reflected people’s changing and current needs. People and their relatives were involved in planning and reviewing their care plans.

People had opportunities to participate in social activities and events.

A complaints procedure was in place and this was easily accessible.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 April 2017

The service was well- led.

Systems were in place for monitoring quality and safety. Action plans were implemented and monitored for progress.

People and staff spoke positively about the management support they received, and told us the home was well-managed.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities with regard to notifications and information they were required