You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 June 2018

Lenthall House 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.

Lenthall House is registered to accommodate and personal care to 40 people; at the time of our inspection there were 37 people living in the home. Lethall House provides care and support to older adults and has an area of the building that is specifically tailored to meet the needs of people living with dementia.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 the last inspection in February 2016, Lenthall House was rated overall good. At this inspection we found that there had been continuous innovation and improvement and is rated overall good.

The registered manager and senior management team at Lenthall House were visible, approachable and acted as a role model for staff within the service. There was a clearly articulated person centred culture.

Staff were encouraged and enabled to work creatively which achieved consistently good outcomes for the people receiving care and support. There was a strong system of quality assurance led by the provider and manager that ensured people consistently received good care and support.

The people living at Lenthall House had an enhanced sense of well-being and quality of life because staff worked innovatively to enable people to have meaningful experiences and to become active members of the local community. People were consistently treated with dignity and respect and the staff team consistently showed empathy for people.

People were safeguarded from harm as the provider had effective systems in place to prevent, recognise and report concerns to the relevant authorities. Staff knew how to recognise harm and were knowledgeable about the steps they should take if they were concerned that someone may be at risk.

Staff knew their responsibilities as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and had applied that knowledge appropriately. Staff understood the importance of obtaining people's consent when supporting them with their daily living needs.

People experienced caring relationships with staff and good interaction was evident, as staff took time to listen and understand what people needed.

There were sufficient numbers of experienced staff that were supported to carry out their roles to meet the assessed needs of people living at the home. Staff received training in areas that enabled them to understand and meet the care needs of each person. Recruitment procedures protected people from receiving unsafe care from care staff unsuited to the role.

People's care and support needs were continually monitored and reviewed to ensure that care was provided in the way that they needed. People or their representative had been involved in planning and reviewing their care and plans of care were in place to guide staff in delivering their care and support.

People's health and well-being was monitored by staff and they were supported to access health professionals in a timely manner when they needed to. People were supported to have sufficient amounts to eat and drink to maintain a balanced diet.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were obtained, stored, administered and disposed of safely. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services when needed.

People's needs were met in line with their individual care plans and assessed needs. Staff took time to

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 June 2018

The service was safe.

Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to report any concerns they may have.

There were robust recruitment procedures in place to check on the suitability of staff and sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe.

People were supported to take their medication as prescribed.

Infection control procedures were in place and followed by the staff team.

Lessons were learnt after accidents, incidents or investigations.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 June 2018

The service remains effective.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 June 2018

The service was caring.

Staff provided kind, dignified and respectful care to people.

Staff knew people very well, and acknowledged people�s individual needs and preferences.

People's rights to independence, privacy and dignity were valued and respected.

People were supported to express their views using a range of methods. People were encouraged to influence how the service was run.

People were at the centre of their care and they were consistently involved in planning and reviewing their own care. Relatives and friends were encouraged to contribute to care planning.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 June 2018

The service remains good.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 June 2018

The service remains good.