You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 July 2018

Our inspection took place on the 31 May and 01 June 2018. The inspection was unannounced. This was the first inspection of the location since a change of provider so this will be the first rating for the location under the management of Karelink Ltd. We did receive some concerns from commissioners and other professionals about the care people received prior to our inspection and this had influenced the timing of our visit. We looked to see if these had been addressed at the inspection.

Lavender Court 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.

Lavender Court accommodates a maximum of 49 people in one building. The provider accommodates people living with dementia, poor mental health, physical disabilities and sensory impairments. At the time of inspection most people living at the home were older people, although a service may be offered to people under retirement age if appropriate. At the time of the inspection there were 30 people living at Lavender Court. The building was originally built as a care home and there are a number of adaptations to accommodate people who receive personal care with nursing. The building provides all single room accommodation and there are a number of communal living areas.

The service is required to have a registered manager. 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 time of our inspection the location did not have a registered manger although a manager had been appointed and had applied to be registered with CQC. The acting manager and the regional manager were available throughout our inspection.

People and their relatives told us they were safe at the home. We found there had been improvement to the systems in place to identify risks to, and safeguard people. Staff were aware of these systems. People said there were sufficient staff but there were occasions where responses to people’s requests for attention were delayed. People’s medicines were managed in a safe way, with minor exceptions relating to recording. We found the environment was clean, was well maintained and people were protected from cross infection. We saw the provider had learnt from recent concerns raised from commissioners and was improving the quality of the service.

We found people’s rights were promoted, and their consent consistently gained by staff. Systems for the assessment of people’s needs had improved and ensured any risks due to people’s health were identified and responded to, with access to health care services as needed. Staff were well supported and had received training and had further training planned appropriate to the skills they needed for their job. People had healthy diets and sufficient drinks although we found the meal time experience could be more relaxed, this recognised by management. The provider, whilst having improved the presentation of the environment, said they now wished to make the home more ‘dementia friendly’.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring, and were seen to treat people with dignity and respect. We saw people’s independence was promoted. People and their relatives were able to express their views and make choices regarding their or their loved ones daily life. People’s contact with their families was encouraged by the provider.

We saw people, or their representatives were involved in planning their care and staff showed an understanding of people’s needs, likes, dislikes and personal preferences. People had access to some activity when they wished to participat

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 7 July 2018

The service was not always safe

There were sufficient staff but responses to people�s requests for attention were sometimes delayed.

People received their medicines in a safe way and recording of medicines administration, with minor exceptions was safe.

People told us they felt safe at the home and there were systems in place to identify and respond to risks. Systems were in place to safeguard people and management and staff were aware of these.

The provider had systems in place to ensure a good standard of cleanliness was maintained and people were protected from cross infection

We found the provider learnt from incidents, events and feedback from others to improve the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 July 2018

The service was effective

People�s rights were promoted, and their consent sought by staff.

The assessment of people�s needs ensured any risks due to their health were identified.

Staff felt supported and received training, or had training planned which would be appropriate in developing their skills for the job.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and good fluid intake, although the meal time experience could be more relaxed.

People were supported to access the health care they needed.

Steps had been taken to improve the environment, and there were plans to continue this to make the home more �dementia friendly�.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 July 2018

The service was caring

People were supported by staff who they said were kind and caring.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

People�s independence was promoted.

People were supported to express their views and make choices regarding their daily living.

People were supported to maintain links with significant others.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 July 2018

The service was responsive

People, or their representatives were involved in their care planning.

Staff had a good understanding of people�s needs, likes, dislikes and personal preferences with regard to likes and dislikes.

People were able to engage in some activities if they wished and the provider was looking to develop these with newly recruitment staff.

People were confident that if they raised a complaint they would be listened to.

The provider was looking at developing systems to enhance how they responded to people�s needs at the end of their life.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 July 2018

The service was well led.

The management team were well known to people, relatives and staff, who said they were approachable.

The manager and regional manager understood their legal responsibilities and were open and honest about the challenges they faced in further improving the service so people were safe and received good quality care.

Robust systems for monitoring the quality of care were in place, or being developed in conjunction with advice and support from outside agencies.