Archived: Milton Lodge Retirement Home

This is a summary of what we found;

is the service safe?

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs and we saw that people were regularly monitored for their own safety. We found staff responded quickly to the call bell and call bells were in people's reach.

Staff checked our identification and kept a record of all visitors entering the service which meant that people were kept safe. We observed a visitor being challenged because they had not signed in and staff reminded them why it was important for them to do so. People were free to move around the service, and access the garden safely. The front door was locked to prevent unauthorised access.

capacity assessmentsWe saw that staff received annual updated training in protecting people from abuse and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and had access to policies and procedures so that they knew what actions they should take to keep people safe. People had mental completed where required and these were appropriate.

The manager had taken appropriate action in response to events affecting the well-being and, or safety of people who used the service. Accidents, incidents and falls were recorded and data was analysed to see if any further actions could be taken to reduce these. The environment was well maintained and there were sufficient staff employed for the purpose of maintaining and cleaning the service Routine audits were completed to check that the building was safe and regular checks were completed on fire safety equipment and equipment used in the service such as hoists, and wheelchairs/ to make sure they were safe to use.

Is the service effective?

We observed the care provided and saw positive interaction between staff and people who used the service. People were enjoying social activities provided across the day and socialising with others. During the day we saw staff responding appropriately and quickly to people's needs. For example a person pressed their alarm bell and three staff responded to it within a few minutes.

People's care was planned in a way which intended to maintain their safety and well-being. People's needs were assessed and evaluated regularly to ensure the care being provided was effective. Where risks had been identified steps had been taken to ensure the risk was controlled.

Is the service caring?

We saw some very good staff interactions and we saw displays of genuine warmth and affection between staff and people using the service. Staff were tactile and knew people well which enabled them to respond to their needs appropriately.

Staff regularly engaged with relatives and involved them in their family members care. Relatives told us that staff kept them up to date with any changes to their family member's needs. This meant the service considered the needs of the person being cared for and their extended family.

One person told us 'This is a good home and staff meet my needs very well.' Another person told us they needed help with their continence needs and said staff provided them support sensitively and discreetly. Another person said, 'They care for us very well here, dear, I am happy.'

Is the service responsive?

We saw a range of things for people to do during the day to keep them engaged and active. Activities were provided to meet the needs of individuals and there was good engagement with the local community and community groups. The service helped people stay connected with their past and were developing life stories for each person. Changes to people's health needs were quickly identified and actions taken to prevent the persons health declining. The service had good working relationships with other health care providers.

Is the service well led?

The home was well managed with an experienced manager, deputy manager and staff with a lot of experience. We saw that the service had good staff retention and did not use outside agency staff so could provide continuity of care to people using the service. The manager told us they were supported by the owner and had an administrator working between both services which helped them keep on top of the paperwork.

The manager had established good links with the community, family members and other health care agencies. The manager and deputy manager had designated time in the office often worked on shift and helped at busy times of the day to support staff and to cover shifts including night shifts.

The service had good quality assurances systems with regular audits being carried out to assess the care being provided and audits of the safety and suitability of the service and equipment being used. We found there were systems in place to support, train and develop staff to ensure they were able to meet people's needs effectively.

One person told us, 'I am happy here, staff understand my needs well. They allow me to be as independent as I can be.' Another person told us, 'It's alright here; I like the view from my window.' A number of people who were unable to tell us about their experiences because they were living with advanced dementia were observed for over an hour. We found that most people were positively engaging with staff and their surroundings. People were observed being offered regular drinks to ensure they were adequately hydrated. Staff provided almost constant supervision to ensure people's safety.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. There were enough staff to deliver the planned care. Staff received adequate training and their practices were monitored to ensure they had the necessary skills to deliver the care.

Medication was administered safely and there were systems in place to ensure staff were sufficiently competent to undertake this task.

Care plans provided a poor record of how to meet people's needs and failed to recognise people's individuality.