You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The inspection of Langdale Lodge took place on 17 July 2018 and it was unannounced. Langdale Lodge is a is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home provides care across two floors and has communal rooms that people can use. There are quieter spaces for people to meet families and friends privately and an accessible garden. It is a care home for 27 older people and at the time of our inspection 25 people were living there.

This was Langdale Lodge’s first inspection under a new registration. Their registration changed in April 2017.

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. There was also a management team in place who were responsible for the day to day running of the home. They ensured that the systems which were in place to drive quality improvement were completed and actions embedded. They also gained feedback from people who used the service and used this to make changes. There were good relationships with other organisations and professionals.

Staff received regular supervision and training to enable them to do their job well. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs promptly and safe recruitment procedures were followed to ensure they were suitable to support people. People were kept safe by staff who understood their responsibilities to detect and report abuse. They had developed caring, respectful relationships with people and ensured their dignity and privacy were upheld.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. They were supported to maintain good health and had regular access to healthcare professionals. Mealtimes were not rushed and people were given a choice of meal. We saw that food and drink was regularly provided and records were maintained for people who were nutritionally at risk. Care plans were regularly reviewed to correspond with changing support needs and they were personalised and accessible.

People were encouraged to pursue interests and hobbies and regular activities were planned. Visitors were welcomed at any time. People knew the managers and felt confident that any concerns they raised would be resolved promptly. There were regular meetings with people and their relatives and surveys were carried out; the feedback was used to improve the home.

Risk was assessed and actions were put in place to reduce it. The effectiveness of the action taken was monitored and regularly reviewed. Lessons were learnt when things went wrong to reduce the likelihood of it happening again. There were systems in the home to keep it clean and free from infection. Medicines were managed to reduce the risks associated with them and people received them when they needed them.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected by staff who knew how to keep them safe from harm and how to report any concerns. They were supported to take their medicines safely and there were systems in place to store them securely. There were sufficient staff to ensure that people were supported safely. Risks to people health and wellbeing were assessed and plans to manage them were followed. Lessons were learnt when things went wrong to avoid repetition. Safe recruitment procedures had been followed when employing new staff. Infection control procedures were embedded.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received training and support to enable them to work with people effectively. They understood how to support people to make decisions about their care. If they did not have capacity to do this, then assessments were completed to ensure decisions were made in the person’s best interest. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and to access healthcare when required. This was done through close collaboration with other professionals. The environment was designed to meet people’s needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was caring.

Staff had developed caring, respectful relationships with the people they supported. People were supported to make choices about their care and their privacy and dignity were respected and upheld. If they could not communicate their choices independent advocates were provided. Relatives and friends were welcomed to visit freely.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was responsive.

People and their families were involved in planning their care. Care was reviewed to meet people’s changing needs and new plans were devised. People were encouraged to participate in hobbies and interests. Complaints were investigated and responded to in line with their procedure.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was well led.

People knew the registered manager well and reported that they were approachable. There were systems in place to drive quality improvement, which the provider had an oversight of. The staff team felt well supported and understood their responsibilities.