You are here

Edendale Lodge Requires improvement


Inspection carried out on 25 February 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

Edendale Lodge is registered to provide support to a maximum of 35 people and 22 people were living at the service at the time of our inspection. The service is intended for older people, who may be living with a physical disability, sensory impairment or a dementia type illness.

People’s experience of using this service:

People told us and we observed that they were safe and well cared for and their independence was encouraged. Comments included, “I like it here,” and, “I’ve settled in now.”

• Whilst the provider had a quality assurance system to review the support and care provided, there was a need to develop the audits to ensure that when issues were identified that a date and action was recorded to enable the provider to evaluate actions taken to consistently drive improvement. For example, ensuring medicine errors and discrepancies were acted on and appropriate action taken. There were policies and procedures for medicine administration but these had not always been followed by staff. Staff feedback regarding the lack of opportunity to provide meaningful activities was known but not yet acted on. Care plan audits had not identified the need to develop the care plans to provide more in-depth guidance for new staff to follow. These were areas that required improvement.

• There were safeguarding systems and processes that protected people from harm. Staff knew the signs of abuse and what to do if they suspected it. One staff member said, “We receive training in safeguarding, I wouldn’t hesitate to raise a safeguarding if our residents were at risk.”

• There were sufficient staff to meet people’s individual needs: all of whom had passed robust recruitment procedures that ensured they were suitable for the role.

• There were systems to monitor people's safety and promote their health and wellbeing, these included health and social risk assessments and care plans. The provider ensured that when things went wrong, these incidents and accidents were recorded and lessons were learned.

• Staff received appropriate training and support to enable them to perform their roles effectively. Visitors told us, “Staff seem knowledgeable, look after my relative really well,” and “The staff are approachable and keep us informed."

• People’s nutritional needs were monitored and reviewed. People had a choice of meals provided and staff knew people’s likes and dislikes. People gave positive feedback about the food. Comments included, “Plenty of choice and always tasty,” and “I like the food.”

• The environment was comfortable and was adapted to meet people's needs. One person said, “Good place to live, I like being outside.”

• People and relatives told us staff were ‘kind’ and ‘caring’. They could express their views about the service and provide feedback. One person said, “We are looked after.”

• People's care was personalised to their individual needs. There was sufficient detail in people's care documentation that enabled staff to provide responsive care.

• People and relatives provided consistently positive feedback about the care, staff and management. They said the service was safe, caring and well-led. One visitor said, “I visit a lot and my relatives are very settled and happy.”

•People were supported to keep in contact with their families.

• The care was designed to ensure people's independence was encouraged and maintained.

• People and families were involved in their care planning. End of life care planning and documentation required further development but this had been identified and work was on-going.

• There was a happy workplace culture and staff provided positive feedback about the management style.

• Referrals were made appropriately to outside agencies when required. For example, GP visits, community nurses and speech and language therapists (SALT). Notifications had been completed to inform CQC and other organisations when events occurred.

The service met the characteristics for a rating of ‘Go