• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Lillibet Lodge

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

6 Rothsay Road, Bedford, Bedfordshire, MK40 3PW (01234) 340712

Provided and run by:
Lillibetcare Ltd

Important: The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All Inspections

25 November 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 25 November 2015. It was unannounced.

Lillibet Lodge is registered to provide a service for up to 25 people, who may have a range of needs, including old age, physical disabilities, mental health, dementia and sensory impairments. Nursing care is not provided. During this inspection, 24 people were living in the home.

A registered manager was 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.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff. However, improvements were required to ensure the way staff were deployed ensured peoples’ safety and met their individual needs.

Systems were in place to ensure people’s daily medicines were managed in a safe way and that they got their medication when they needed it. However, improvements were required to ensure staff checked people had received their creams as prescribed, before recording these as given.

People had enough to eat and drink. Assistance was provided to those who needed help with eating and drinking, in a discreet and helpful manner. However, improvements were needed to enhance people's dining experience, and to ensure all staff are familiar with people's dietary preferences.

We saw that people were given opportunities to be actively involved in making decisions about their care and support. However, improvements were required to ensure records relating to people's care are up to date and contain sufficient detail, to demonstrate the care and support being provided.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. However, improvements were required to ensure these are more effective, in order to drive continuous improvement within the service.

Staff had been trained to recognise signs of potential abuse and keep people safe. People felt safe living at the service.

Processes were in place to manage identifiable risks within the service, and ensure people did not have their freedom unnecessarily restricted.

The provider carried out proper recruitment checks on new staff to make sure they were suitable to work at the service.

Staff had received training to carry out their roles and meet people’s assessed needs.

We found that the service worked to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 key principles, which meant that people’s consent was sought in line with legislation and guidance.

People’s healthcare needs were met. The service had developed positive working relationships with external healthcare professionals to ensure effective arrangements were in place to meet people’s healthcare needs.

Staff were motivated and provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They treated people with kindness and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity at all times.

People’s social needs were provided for and they were given opportunities to participate in meaningful activities.

A complaints procedure had been developed to let people know how to raise concerns about the service if they needed to.

There were effective management and leadership arrangements in place.

2 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we had inspected to answer questions we always ask; is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well lead?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

People had been cared for in an environment that was safe and well maintained. Systems were in place to ensure that staff attended training to enable them to carry out their role effectively, and received regular supervision. Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. There were appropriate numbers of staff on duty to ensure people's needs were met.

Is the service effective?

It was clear form our observations and speaking with people that the staff had a good understanding of their needs and responded to them accordingly. Staff had received training and support required to enable them to carry out their role effectively. One person living in the home told us that they got on well with all the staff and described them as 'Pretty on the ball.'

Is the service caring?

We observed staff responding to people's needs, they spent time with them and explained their actions. One person we spoke with said the care they received was very good and that the staff always treated them with dignity.

Is the service responsive?

We noted that staff responded immediately to call bells, and were attentive to people's needs. Care plans and risk assessments were in place and updated when people's needs had changed.

Is the service well lead?

The service had a registered manager in post, who was supernumerary to the staff on duty.

Records showed that regular quality audits had been carried out, including a satisfaction survey which had been given out to people who used the service, their relatives and the staff. People we spoke with told us that the manager was always available for them to speak with if they had any concerns.