You are here

Archived: Northampton Lodge Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 12 November 2016

We inspected Northampton Lodge on 18 and 19 August 2016. The inspection was unannounced. At the previous inspection in December 2014 the service was meeting the Regulations we inspected.

The service provides care and accommodation for up to four adults with learning disabilities, mental illness and physical disabilities. There were three people using the service at the time of the inspection.The service does not require a registered manager under the conditions of registration.

The provider had not ensured the safety of the premises and the equipment in it. We identified issues around maintenance, lighting, hot water checks, legionella checks and equipment. Although the provider informed us there were problems with the landlord maintaining the building it was the responsibility of the provider to ensure it was safe. The service did not support staff with risk assessments that were regularly reviewed and updated which provided clear guidance on how to address those risks. The provider had not ensured medicines were managed properly. Procedures were unclear. Records were poor and it was not possible to reconcile the quantity of some medicines with those records. Poor procedures and records increased the risks of medicines not being administered as prescribed. The provider had not ensured there were appropriate procedures in place in relation to the prevention and control of infection. Despite the interior of the building being tidy we were not satisfied with the overall cleanliness and hygiene. We found damp patches in rooms and mould in bathrooms. Both increased the risk of respiratory symptoms and infections. There was no clear leadership, policies and auditing in relation to infection prevention and control. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full report. People using the service told us they felt safe. There were enough qualified and suitable staff to meet people’s needs.

Although staff had completed appropriate training there were significant gaps in refresher training. For example there had been no refresher training or competency checks in relation to medicine’s management. There was a risk staff did not have the most up to date information to support them to provide safe and appropriate care. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full report. The service was acting within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. People were supported with nutrition, hydration and maintaining good health. We have made a recommendation about nutrition and hydration.

People and those acting lawfully on their behalf must be actively encouraged and supported to be involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Records did not show the involvement of people or their relatives in the planning and delivery of care and support or how the service supported people to understand care options and express their views. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full report. Care was delivered in a patient, friendly and sensitive manner. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. People’s choices and preferences were respected by staff but were not clearly recorded. People were supported to maintain and develop independence.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs which were recorded in a variety of documents including assessments and reviews by relevant authorities. However, this information had not been used by the service to develop their own care plans to support and guide staff to deliver safe and effective care and support. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full report. People were involved in activities. There were opportunities for people to provide feedback about the service.

The provider did not have effective systems in place to make sure the quality of service they provided was regularly monitored and assessed to prevent inappropriate or unsafe care. The se

Inspection areas

Safe

Inadequate

Updated 12 November 2016

The service was not safe. The provider had not ensured the safety of premises and equipment in it. Risk assessments relating to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service were not developed and regularly reviewed. Medicines were not managed properly. The provider had not ensured there were appropriate procedures in place in relation to the prevention and control of infection. There were enough, suitable and qualified staff to meet people’s needs.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 12 November 2016

Some aspects of the service were not effective. There were significant gaps in staff refresher training. The service was acting within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. People were supported with nutrition, hydration and maintaining good health.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 12 November 2016

Some aspects of the service were not caring. Records did not show how people or their relatives were involved in the planning and delivery of care and support. Records did not show how people were supported to understand the care options available and express their views. Care was delivered a patient, friendly and sensitive manner. People’s choices and preferences were respected by staff but were not clearly recorded. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 12 November 2016

Some aspects of the service were not responsive. People received personalised care. The service had not developed care plans for people to support staff to deliver safe and effective care. People were involved in regular activities. The service did not actively seek feedback from a range of stakeholders to improve the service although there were opportunities for people using the service to do so.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 12 November 2016

Some aspects of the service were not well-led. The provider did not have effective systems in place to make sure the quality of service they provided was regularly monitored and assessed. Records were not always accurate, up to date and fit for purpose. Feedback was not actively sought from a range of stakeholders to help improve the service.