You are here

Archived: Lucy Lodge Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 28 April 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection of Lucy Lodge took place on 28 April 2016 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 3 July 2014 the service met all of the regulations we assessed under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. These regulations were superseded on 1 April 2015 by the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Lucy Lodge is a traditional property in a residential area close to the centre of the seaside town of Bridlington. Its situation offers easy access to the local community and public transport, being within walking distance of local shops and facilities. The service supports up to 16 people who may have mental health needs. At the time of the inspection there were 13 people using the service. All bedrooms are for single occupancy, and there is one lounge, one dining room and an enclosed external smoke room. Bathroom facilities are shared, but designated to male and female use. There is a small garden area for people to use in the warmer months, which is separated from the small car park to the rear of the property. Extra parking is available on the street, but this is time limited due to parking restrictions.

The registered provider was not required to have a registered manager in post, as the registered provider was a registered partnership. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. On the day of the inspection the registered partners were jointly managing the service. One of the partners had the National Vocational Qualification Level 4 in Advanced Management in Care and 29 years’ experience working with people with mental health needs. The partners had employed a registered manager previously but this person had left their position in December 2015.

People were protected from the risk of harm because the registered provider had systems in place to detect, monitor and report potential or actual safeguarding concerns. Staff were appropriately trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of managing potential and actual safeguarding concerns. Risks were also managed and reduced on an individual and group basis so that people avoided injury of harm.

The premises were safely maintained and there was evidence in the form of maintenance certificates, contracts and records to show this. Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s needs and we saw the staff recorded on the rosters were on duty. Recruitment policies, procedures and practices were carefully followed to ensure staff were suitable to care for and support vulnerable people. The management of medication was safely carried out.

People were cared for and supported by qualified and competent staff that were regularly supervised and had their performance appraised. Communication was effective, people’s mental capacity was appropriately assessed and their rights were protected. No one required any Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards referrals to restrict their lifestyles, as people were free to come and go and voluntarily agreed to any proposed behaviour modification plans. The Mental Health Act 1983 was the legislation most likely to be used at Lucy Lodge.

People received adequate nutrition and hydration to maintain their levels of health and wellbeing. The premises were suitable for providing care to people with mental health issues and their general environment was that of a family home.

We found that people received informative and friendly care from kind staff and that staff knew about people’s needs and preferences. People were supplied with the information they needed at the right time, were inv

Inspection carried out on 3 July 2014

During a routine inspection

Our inspector visited the service to answer our five questions; is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service and the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People had care plans in place which told staff how to meet peoples' needs in the best way. This meant the service of care was safely delivered to people.

We found that people that used the service were protected from the risks of harm because there were safe systems in place to identify and prevent abuse from happening.

Is the service effective?

We found that the service effectively obtained peoples' consent to care and treatment before it was given to them and that the manager and staff understood their responsibilities regarding the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards. People were afforded their rights and these were upheld whenever possible.

Peoples' care plans were compiled following assessment, planning and reviewing of their needs and so they were an effective tool for telling staff how to support them. They also noted changes in needs and were effectively adjusted to ensure the care given to people was right for them.

There were effective systems in place to identify staff training needs, source the training that staff required and to record training as it happened. This meant people that used the service received effective support from staff who were given the skills to do their job.

Is the service caring?

We saw that staff were polite and helpful and went about their roles in a calm way. Staff were supportive and kind. People told us they liked the staff and that they were settled living at Lucy Lodge.

Is the service responsive?

The service responded to peoples' needs and changes in those needs by ensuring staff understood peoples' wishes and preferences and made changes to the way they were supported if necessary.

Is the service well led?

People that used the service had care plans in place that were regularly reviewed and reflected peoples' individual needs and preferences. The manager ensured these had been accurately implemented, which enabled staff to provide people with the care and support they required.

We found that the manager led by example and assisted with care and support when it was necessary. They used quality assurance and supervision systems well and practiced a management style that was inclusive, supportive and guiding in order to get the best from the service. The service was well led.

Inspection carried out on 7 June 2013

During a routine inspection

People who lived in the home told us they had choices each day and this included the times for getting up or retiring to bed, what to eat and what to do each day. We saw that people�s care files included information about their personal preferences and choices. This assisted staff in ensuring people lived their life as they chose.

We observed interactions between people who lived in the home and the staff team and saw that these were polite and respectful.

Assessments of peoples needs were in place and care plans had been developed to record the support staff offered people. Risk assessments were in place to help protect people and daily diary notes recorded how people spent their time. People told us about the home and said, �It�s not too bad� and �It�s very good, it�s alright.�

Health needs were recorded in a separate file with records of the support the person had received from health professionals; although information in relation to people�s mental health could be developed further.

Policies and systems were in place for the handling of peoples medicines. People told us they were happy with this and one person was supported to administer their own medication. However storage of medication required to be kept cool was not secure.

There was a recruitment process in place to help ensure that the people employed were suitable for their role.

Additionally there were quality assurance systems in the home to ascertain people�s views about the home, although these had yet to be fully implemented. Health and safety checks were undertaken and maintenance checks were in place to help ensure that people were kept safe. However not all risk assessments had been completed.