You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 21 August 2018

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of Lulworth on 22 May 2018.

Lulworth is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Lulworth is registered to provide accommodation for people requiring personal care for up to 16 people and younger adults with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, physical disabilities, sensory impairments and mental health support needs.

People lived in two separate buildings in the premises of the service; a larger building named Lulworth and a smaller annex called Blake. At the time of the inspection there were 16 people in total living at Lulworth. 11 people lived in Lulworth and five people lived in Blake.

Lulworth has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using this service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service had 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.

This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in June 2017.

People told us they thought the service was safe. One person said, “I feel very safe here”. A relative told us, “It is a safe place, environmentally and with the quality and availability of staff.” There were systems and processes in place to keep people safe from abuse. People and staff knew how to recognise abuse situations and know what they could do, or who they could speak with, to get help to prevent this.

Safeguarding and accident and incidents were reviewed internally and the service shared information and worked in partnership with relevant health and social care agencies following any incidents. This helped staff and people to learn and put in place actions to prevent these situations occur and to keep people as safe as possible.

People had risk assessments in place that identified any potential hazards to their well-being. Actions were in place to help people and staff manage the risk safely and positively, in the least restrictive way. Systems and processes were in place to ensure medicines were safely and properly managed. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and there were safe recruitment practices help prevent unsuitable staff from working at the service.

The service was clean and hygienic and risks to people from infection were well managed. The premises and equipment used in the service was safe and well maintained. There were regular fire alarm tests and fire drills. People had Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) in place so staff knew how to support them safely in the event of a fire.

People told us that the service was effective. A relative told us, “The staff are brilliant” and the service met their family member’s needs very well. We found people had support to achieve good outcomes and quality of life.

Assessments of people’s physical, psychological and social needs took place and people’s needs were regularly reviewed. This holistic process helped staff know how support people to achieve their support outcomes in all areas of their lives and have a good, well-rounded quality of life.

The provider was committed to promoting inclusion and supporting people with a learning disability to overcome any social prejudice that could act as a barrier to them achieving their chosen outcomes. S

Inspection areas



Updated 21 August 2018

The service was safe.

Systems and processes were in place to safeguard people from abuse.

Risks to people were monitored and managed to keep people safe in the least restrictive way possible.

The service had sufficient numbers of suitably trained and skilled staff.

Medicines were managed properly and safely.

The service was clean and hygienic and people were protected from risks of infection.



Updated 21 August 2018

The service was effective.

People�s needs were holistically assessed to staff could support them to achieve effective outcomes.

Staff had training and support to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to meet people�s needs.

People had support to with their eating and drinking needs and to maintain a healthy diet.

Staff worked well internally and with external services to deliver effective support for people.

People had support to access appropriate healthcare services and receive on-gong healthcare support.

People consented to their care and the service worked in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.



Updated 21 August 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and empathy.

People were involved in making decisions about their support.

Staff supported people to express their views.

People�s privacy, dignity and confidentiality was respected.

Staff promoted and encouraged people�s independence.



Updated 21 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People were involved with planning their support.

People�s had care plans in place and received personalised support from staff who knew them well

Staff responded well to changes in people�s needs.

People had support to take part in meaningful activities and maintain and develop social relationships in the service and the wider community.

Complaints were managed appropriately.



Updated 21 August 2018

The service was well-led.

There was a clear vision and set of values and to empower people with a learning disability to achieve the best possible outcomes and quality of life.

There was a positive and open culture at the service, managers were visible and approachable and staff were well supported.

Staff worked in an open and transparent way with external stakeholders to share information to improve the quality of the service.

Quality assurance and governance systems were effective and helped identify actions to address issues and build on areas of good practice.

People, staff and relatives were all encouraged and involved in developing the service.