You are here

Sharnbrook Care Home Limited Good Also known as Sharnbrook Lodge

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11 April 2013
Date of Publication: 8 May 2013
Inspection Report published 8 May 2013 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 11 April 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

Reasons for our judgement

People who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on.

The registered manager told us that monitoring the quality and performance of the service was undertaken through a variety of methods such as, surveys, observing staff practice, reviewing individuals’ care plans and risk assessments. Audits relating to health and safety, the environment, care plans and safe handling of medicines were also undertaken. We saw evidence that audits were carried out monthly or bi-monthly. The provider may wish to note that there was no analysis or written action plan in place from the relatives and service user survey that was carried out in February 2013. Also the provider may wish to note that action plans from the environmental audits did not always provide timescales when remedial action had been completed.

We saw evidence that regular staff meetings were held. Staff spoken with said that the registered manager was approachable and worked with them to provide hands on care. This meant staff were supported to undertake their responsibilities effectively.

We looked at the complaints folder and found that complaints had been investigated appropriately. This meant people could be assured that complaints made would be resolved where possible to their satisfaction.