You are here

Colton Lodges Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We have removed an inspection report for Colton Lodges Care Home from 22 August 2019. The removal of the report is not related to the provider or the quality of this service. We found an issue with some of the information gathered by an individual who supported our inspection. We will reinspect this service as soon as possible and publish a new inspection report.

Reports


Inspection carried out on 5 March 2020

During a routine inspection

About the service

Colton Lodge care home is a care home providing personal care to 108 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using the service

The home was not always well led as quality assurance systems were not robust. Audits did not identify the issues we found on inspection and actions had not always been completed. Records were not always completed or accurate. Care plans were not always updated to reflect people’s current needs. The registered manager was open, honest and was keen to make improvements within the home. Surveys and meetings were held with people and their relatives to ask for their views and their suggestions were used to improve the service.

Medicines were not managed safely. Medication records were not accurate and did not provide clear guidance for administering medicines safely. Medication prescription information on charts had been changed without clinical evidence to support this. Risks were managed effectively to mitigate risks and staff knew their individual needs well, but this was not always recorded. We found some risk assessments lacked information to inform staff on how people should be supported. Incidents and accidents were managed effectively when reported. However, we found incidents of unexplained bruising which had not been investigated and the registered manager took immediate action to address this.

There were enough staff working each day. However, the deployment of staff meant people sometimes had to wait for support. We have made a recommendation around staffing deployment. Staff completed training and received regular supervisions which supported them in their role. Appraisals were carried out for staff develop and spot checks completed to monitor staff practice. Recruitment processes remained robust.

Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives as staff asked people for their consent and supported them in the least restrictive way.

People said staff listened to them and were caring. People were well cared for by staff who treated them with respect and dignity. People and their relatives said they felt safe and we saw positive interactions between people and staff.

Care plans were completed however, these were not always up to date. We have made a recommendation around care planning.

People told us staff knew their needs and how to support them. Staff supported people in a way they wanted. End of life care was being provided and staff received training to care for people in the way the wanted. A complaints system was in place and complaints were managed effectively.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 31 August 2018) and there was a breach of regulation 18. There was an inspection on 25 and 29 July 2019. However, the report following that inspection was withdrawn as there was an issue with some of the information that we gathered.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection.

Enforcement

We have found evidence the provider needs to make improvements. We have identified breaches in relation to medicines and governance at this inspection.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 17 July 2018

During a routine inspection

A comprehensive inspection took place on 17 and 19 July 2018 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection of this location following a change in its registration in December 2017. Colton Lodges Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Colton Lodges Care Home, known to people, their relatives and staff as Colton Lodges. Colton Lodges is a purpose built home comprising of four units Newsam, Whitkirk, Elmet and Garforth. It provides care for up to 138 people across the four units. There are well appointed communal areas and communal bath and shower rooms located in each unit. On both days of our inspection there were 119 people living at Colton Lodges. Newsam provided care and support for people living with Dementia, Whitkirk and Elmet provided care and support for people requiring nursing needs and Garforth was the residential unit.

At the time of the inspection, the home had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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.

There were not always sufficient numbers of staff on duty to ensure people’s needs were met. Staff had received training and supervision to ensure people received effective care, although, the providers supervision process was not consistently implemented across all the units. Recruitment processes were robust and staff completed an induction when they started work.

People and visitors told us they and their family member felt safe at the home. We found there were appropriate systems in place to protect people from risk of harm and individual risks had been assessed. Maintenance checks were carried out in the home to ensure it was safe. Safe systems were in place to manage medicines so people received their medicines as prescribed.

We found the home was well maintained, clean and tidy, although, some comments from people and visitors we spoke with said the home was looking a little ‘tired’. People’s bedrooms had been personalised and communal areas were comfortable and homely. The decor was dementia friendly with pictures and signage which helped support people living with dementia to navigate their way around the home.

Records showed people had regular access to healthcare professionals to help meet their wider healthcare needs. People’s nutritional needs were met and menus we saw offered variety and choice.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People and visitors, we spoke with were happy with the care provided and we saw people looked well care for and there was friendly ‘banter’ between people and staff. We saw staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. The registered manager explained they provided a person-centred approach to end of life care.

Care plans contained sufficient person-centred information to guide staff in how to support the person. People and visitors told us they were involved with the development of the care plan. Staff had a good knowledge and understanding of people’s needs and worked together as a team.

People enjoyed the activities available although, some people told us they would benefit from more variety and trips outs.

The registered manager told us they made improvements when things went wrong. Complaints were investigated and responded to appropriately.

People and their relatives had opportunities to comment on the quality of service and influenc