You are here

Archived: Stonedale Lodge Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 April 2017

Situated in the Croxteth area of Liverpool, Stonedale Lodge Care Home offers personal and nursing care for 180 people. There has been a recent change of legal entity and the provider is now registered as Bupa Care Homes Limited. The service is called Stonedale Lodge Care Home.

Accommodation is provided on six units, each with 30 beds. Dalton and Anderton units provide personal care for people living with dementia, Clifton unit provides nursing care for people living with dementia, Blundell and Townley provide general nursing care and Sherburne unit provides general personal care.

This unannounced inspection of Stonedale Lodge Care Home took place over three days from 14-16 March 2017. At the time of our inspection 142 people were living in the home.

There was a registered manager in 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.

At the last inspection in February 2016 we found previous breaches of regulation had been met. Although improvements had been made we had not rated the service as ‘good’ at that inspection as we needed evidence of longer term consistency in respect of maintaining improvements within the service. At this inspection we found these improvements had been maintained and developed further.

People living at the home and relatives told us they felt staff delivered safe care.

The environment and equipment was subject to checks and service contracts to ensure the safety of people living at the home.

The staff we spoke with described how they would recognise abuse and the action they would take to ensure actual or potential harm was reported. An adult safeguarding policy and the local authority’s safeguarding procedure was available for staff to refer to.

Staff we spoke with told us they always asked for people's consent before providing care and we observed this during the visit.

Care plans provided information to inform staff about people's care needs and risks to people’s health and wellbeing had been assessed to ensure their safety.

People and relatives were included in planning care and involved in care reviews. This could be recorded in more detail to show their involvement.

People at the home were supported by the staff and external health care professionals to maintain

their health and wellbeing.

The home adhered to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Applications to deprive people of their liberty under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) had been submitted to the local authority.

The staff in the home knew the people they were supporting and the care they needed. Staff approach was kind and supportive and people’s individual needs and preferences were respected by staff.

Staff files showed appropriate recruitment checks had been made so that staff employed were 'fit' to work with vulnerable people.

Staff received training in key areas and more ‘specific’ training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to care for people safely. There was an induction programme with mentorship for new staff.

Staff told us they received a good level of support from the management team. This included supervision meetings and appraisals.

We observed there was enough staff to carry out care in a timely manner. We saw staff were attentive to the needs of people and no one appeared to wait for assistance.

Activities co-ordinators provided a varied programme of social activities in accordance with people’s needs and wishes. Staff were aware of the importance of providing stimulation for people with dementia to keep people engaged and motivated.

People told us they enjoyed the meals and the menus provided a good choice of well balanced meals. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and catered for.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 April 2017

The service was safe.

Suitable systems and processes were in place to ensure the premises and equipment were maintained and safe to use.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider's arrangements to manage medicines were consistently followed.

People’s care needs had been risk assessed to ensure their well-being and safety.

Staff had been checked when they were recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

The staff we spoke with described how they would recognise abuse and the action they would take to ensure actual or potential harm was reported.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to support people in a safe consistent way.

The home was clean and we there were systems in place to manage the control of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 April 2017

The service was effective.

Staff sought consent from people before providing support. Staff had an understanding of mental capacity and how this applied to people who lived at the home.

Staff were supported through induction, appraisal and the home’s training programme to carry out their role effectively.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed according to dietary preference and need. People told us they liked the food and were able to choose what they wanted to eat from a varied menu.

People had a plan of care which provided detail about their care needs. People told us the staff had a good understanding of their care needs.

People had access to external health professionals to maintain their health.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 April 2017

The service was caring.

People living at the home were relaxed and settled. We observed positive interactions between people living at the home and staff.

People at the home told us they were listened to and their views taken into account when deciding how to spend their day.

People told us staff were polite. We observed the staff to be caring, polite and sensitive to people’s needs.

People we spoke with and relatives told us the staff involved them with the plan of care and care reviews conducted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 April 2017

The service was responsive.

A varied programme of recreational activities was available for people living at the home to participate in.

Care was planned with regard to people’s individual preferences and wishes.

A process for managing complaints was in place. People and relatives we spoke with knew how to make a complaint and felt confident in doing so.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 April 2017

The service was well led.

The service had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission. The registered manager was long standing and was supported by a strong committed management team.

Staff said they felt supported by the registered manager and that the management of the home was good.

There was a positive and caring culture in the home and people and relatives reported favourably regarding the service provision.

There were a series of ongoing audits and quality checks to ensure standards were being maintained and further developed.

Staff were aware of the whistle blowing policy and were confident in its use.

The Care Quality Commission had been notified of reportable incidents in the home.