You are here

Lumley Residential Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at Lumley Residential Home. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 September 2017

The inspection took place on 14 August 2017. The inspection was unannounced and was carried out by an adult social care inspector and an expert by experience.

We last inspected the service in June 2015 and rated the service as Good overall with Requiring Improvement in the Responsive domain. At this inspection we found the service remained good and met all the fundamental standards we inspected against.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Within Lumley Residential Home there is a separate unit called Jeffery Court which caters for a group of younger adults who may have a learning and/ or physical disability. We spent time in all areas of the service during this inspection.

There were safeguarding procedures in place. Staff were knowledgeable about what action they should take if abuse was suspected. The local authority safeguarding team informed us that were no current safeguarding concerns regarding the service.

The premises were clean. Checks and tests had been carried out to ensure that the premises were safe.

There were safe systems in place to receive, administer and dispose of medicines.

We found that recruitment checks were carried out to ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staffing levels were provided to meet the needs of people using the service. Records confirmed that training was available to ensure staff were suitably skilled. Staff were supported through an appraisal and supervision system.

The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We saw the service identified where an authorisation may be required and followed the correct procedures to apply and maintain a DoLS.

People's nutritional needs were met and they were supported to access healthcare services when required.

We observed positive interactions between staff and people who lived at the service. Staff promoted people's privacy and dignity. There were systems in place to ensure people were involved in their care and support. The service ensured people had access to independent advocacy support services.

Care plans were in place which detailed the care and support to be provided for people. These had been improved to reflect a more person centred approach and showed more involvement from people who used the service.

There was an activities coordinator employed to help meet the social needs of people. The service was working with an external activity company and also had hens in the garden that people helped look after. People were supported to access the local community.

There was a complaints procedure in place. Feedback systems were in place to obtain people’s views.

The provider had a quality assurance process in place that checked on the quality of the service and ensured that people were consulted about the running of the home.

The provider was meeting the conditions of their registration. They were submitting notifications in line with legal requirements. They were displaying their previous CQC performance ratings at the service and on their website.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 September 2017

The service remained good.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 September 2017

The service remained good.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 September 2017

The service remained good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 September 2017

The service was responsive.

People�s care plans were relevant to their needs and reviewed regularly. We saw plans were reflective of people's needs and there was good guidance for staff in case people became anxious.

The service provided a choice of activities and people were able to access the community.

There was a complaints procedure available that was well publicised. People and staff stated the registered manager was approachable and would listen and act on any concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 September 2017

The service remained good.