You are here

Archived: Stockton 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 29 April 2015

The inspection visit took place on the 9 March 2015 and was unannounced which meant the staff and provider did not know we were visiting.

Stockton Lodge Care Home is registered to provide nursing and personal care for up to 48 people. It caters for people with general nursing and residential care needs and is situated in the Stockton area.

We last inspected the service on 5 January 2014 and found the service was compliant with regulations at that time.

There was not a registered manager in post. They had recently left the service two weeks ago and the service was currently being managed by an experienced regional manager. 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 policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The acting manager had the appropriate knowledge to know when an application should be made and how to submit one. The manager also ensured that capacity assessments were completed and ‘best interest’ decisions were made in line with the MCA code of practice. This meant people were safeguarded.

We found that safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. This included obtaining references from previous employers to show staff employed were safe to work with vulnerable people.

Most people told us they felt safe at the service, although one person and one relative raised some concerns around staffing and care by agency staff and this was discussed with the acting manager at the time of the visit. Staff told us they felt there wasn’t always enough staff on duty and people who used the service told us they sometimes had to wait for staff. We also noticed that call bells were ringing for extended periods during our visit which indicated that there were not enough staff on duty to meet the needs of people living at the service. The staff team were supportive of the acting manager and each other.

Appropriate systems were in place for the management of medicines so that people received their medicines safely.

Medicines were stored in a safe manner. We witnessed staff administering medication in a safe and correct way. Staff ensured people were given time to take their medicines at their own pace.

There was a regular programme of staff supervision in place and records of these were detailed and showed the service worked with staff to identify their personal and professional development. We spoke with kitchen staff who had a good awareness of people’s dietary needs and staff also knew people’s food preferences well. One person told us that they had raised an issue regarding the food, it was dealt with immediately and they were very satisfied with the outcome.

We saw people’s care plans were personalised and had been well assessed. Staff told us they referred to care plans regularly and they showed regular review that involved, when they were able, the person. We saw people being given choices and encouraged to take part in all aspects of day to day life at the service. We witnessed staff using a communication book with one person who had difficulties in verbalising. A visiting occupational therapist was highly impressed that the service had used their initiative to source this aid and implement it themselves.

The service encouraged people to maintain their independence and the activities co-ordinator ran a full programme of events which included accessing the community with people.

The service undertook regular questionnaires not only with people who lived at the home and their family but also with visiting professionals and staff members. We also saw a regular programme of staff and resident meetings where issues where shared and raised. The service had an accessible complaints procedure and people told us they knew how to raise a complaint if they needed to. This showed the service listened to the views of people.

Any accidents and incidents were monitored by the interim manager to ensure any trends were identified. This system helped to ensure that any patterns of accidents and incidents could be identified and action taken to reduce any identified risks.

The service had a comprehensive range of audits in place to check the quality and safety of the service and equipment at Stockton Lodge.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 29 April 2015

The service required improvements to be safe

Staff were recruited safely to meet the needs of the people living at the service.

Most people living at the service told us they felt safe. Staff were clear on what constituted as abuse and had a clear understanding of the procedures in place to safeguard vulnerable people and how to raise a safeguarding alert.

People and staff told us they felt there were not enough staff at all times at the service. The service was using agency nurses mainly on night shifts. We noticed that buzzers were ringing almost continually throughout the morning of our visit.

There were policies and procedures to ensure people received their medicines safely and medicines were stored appropriately.

Accidents and incidents were monitored by the acting manager to ensure any trends were identified and lessons learnt.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 April 2015

This service was effective.

People were supported to have their nutritional needs met and mealtimes were well supported.

Staff received regular supervision and training to meet the needs of the service.

The acting manager and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivations of Liberties (DoLS) and they understood their responsibilities.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 April 2015

This service was caring.

People told us they were happy with the care and support they received and their needs had been met.

It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff they had a good understanding of people’s care and support needs and knew people well.

Wherever possible, people were involved in making decisions about their care and independence was promoted. We saw people’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 April 2015

This service was responsive.

People’s care plans were written from the point of view of the person receiving the service.

The service provided a choice of activities and people’s choices were respected.

There was a clear complaints procedure and staff, people and relatives all stated the interim manager was approachable and listened to any concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 April 2015

The service was well-led.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

People and staff all said they could raise any issue with the acting manager.

People’s views were sought regarding the running of the service and changes were made and fed-back to everyone receiving the service.