You are here

Archived: Jackman's Lodge 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 16 March 2017

This inspection took place on 19 January 2017 and was unannounced.

Stokefield Care Home provides care and accommodation for up to 30 older people, some of whom are living with dementia.

There was not a registered manager in place. The new manager was in the process of becoming registered. 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 our last inspection we found breaches of regulation. At this inspection we found actions had been taken to ensure the regulations had been met and the service had improved.

People’s medicines were administered safely by trained staff. People had access to a variety of healthcare professionals and staff worked alongside them to ensure people’s needs were met. Staff had undertaken training specific to the needs of the people that they were supporting.

People were given choices and involved in their care by staff. People were prepared food in line with their preferences and dietary requirements. People could engage in a variety of activities, events and outings. People’s cultural and religious needs were catered for by staff.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). In most cases, the correct process was followed when placing restrictions upon people. We recommended that the provider reviews their MCA records to ensure that the correct legal process is always followed.

People were supported by staff that knew them well. Care plans were person centred and contained important information about people’s lifestyle, background and preferences. The manager undertook regular audits to ensure records were up to date and clear for staff.

People and staff got along well and caring interactions we observed were mostly positive. We observed one staff member speaking to someone in a way that was not considerate of their needs. We recommended that the provider ensures that all staff are considerate and respectful.

Staff understood their roles in protecting people from abuse. When recruiting staff, checks were undertaken to ensure that they were suitable for their roles. There were sufficient staff present to meet people’s needs.

Risks to people were assessed and measures were in place to protect people. Where incidents happened, actions were taken to keep people safe and prevent them from reoccurring.

People lived in an inclusive atmosphere in which they were involved in decisions about their home. Staff encouraged people to be independent and to make choices. The provider regularly sought people’s feedback and people were aware of how to make a complaint. Complaints were responded to appropriately by the manager.

Staff felt supported by management and could make suggestions to improve the lives of people living at the home. Staff provided support in a way that promoted people’s privacy and dignity.

Plans were in place to support people in the event of an emergency. Regular audits were undertaken to ensure the safety of the premises and equipment.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 March 2017

The service was safe.

Staff followed safe medicines management procedures.

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs.

Risks to people’s safety were known to staff and had been assessed and recorded.

The provider carried out appropriate recruitment checks when employing new staff.

Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and knew how to report any concerns.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 March 2017

The service was effective.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the legal process was followed.

People were supported by staff who were appropriately trained.

Staff knew people’s food preferences and people were offered choices appropriate to their dietary requirements.

People had good access to healthcare professionals and staff worked alongside them to meet people’s health needs effectively.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 March 2017

The service was caring.

Staff provided care in a way that promoted their privacy and dignity.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and got along with them.

There was an inclusive atmosphere at the home and people were involved in decisions about the home

People’s religious and cultural needs were met by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 March 2017

People had access to a wide range of activities. People were involved in choosing what they wished to do.

Care plans were person-centred and reflected people’s needs and personalities.

Systems were in place to ensure people received regular reviews and staff could identify where people’s needs had changed.

Complaints were responded to by the provider.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 March 2017

The service was well-led.

Robust quality assurance measures were in place and where improvements were identified, these were actioned.

The manager created an open culture in which staff could be included in decisions about the home.

People’s feedback was gathered and people were given opportunities to contribute to the running of the home.