We carried out an inspection of Haslingden Hall & Lodge on the 27 & 29 January and 2 February 2015. The first day of our inspection was unannounced.
We last inspected Haslingden Hall & Lodge on 23 June 2014 and found the service was meeting the requirements of the current legislation in the outcomes assessed. These were, consent to care and treatment, care and welfare of people using the service, safeguarding people, requirements relating to workers and assessing and monitoring the service provision.
Haslingden Hall and Lodge is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 76 people. All bedrooms are single occupancy with an en-suite toilet and shower. The home is situated in a residential area of Haslingden. There is adequate parking for staff and visitors. There are comfortable lounges, dining rooms and conservatories. Various aids and adaptations are provided to support people maintain their independence in addition to assisted bathing facilities. There is a passenger lift to the upper floor. The home is divided into two units, one of which accommodates people with dementia. At the time of our visit there were sixty eight people living in the home.
The home was managed by 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.
CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the location to be meeting the requirements of DoLS. People using this service and their representatives were involved in decisions about how their care and support would be provided. The registered manager and support staff understood their responsibilities in promoting people's choice and decision-making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
People told us they were cared for very well and they felt safe. They told us they had never had any concerns about how they or other people were treated. We observed people were comfortable around staff and did not show any signs of distress when staff approached them. One person said, “I feel safe and am well looked after with nothing to grumble about.” Routines were seen to be flexible to accommodate people’s varying needs and there were no institutional practices observed.
People were cared for by staff that had been recruited safely and were both trained and receiving training to support them in their duties. We found there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff on duty to attend to people’s needs and keep them safe. People had mixed views about the staffing levels but overall considered there was enough staff working to attend to their needs as and when required.
Contractual arrangements were in place to make sure staff did not gain financially from people they cared for. For example, staff were not allowed to accept gifts or be involved in wills or bequests. This meant people could be confident they had some protection against financial abuse and this was closely monitored.
We were able to establish risk assessments linked to peoples’ welfare and safety had been completed and the management of known risk planned for. Appropriate equipment was in use to reduce any risks to people’s health and well-being.
People had their medicines when they needed them. Medicines were managed safely. We found accurate records and appropriate processes were in place for the ordering, receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines.
The home was warm, clean and hygienic and staff had been trained in infection control. Cleaning schedules were followed and staff were provided with essential protective clothing. People told us they had their privacy respected by all staff and were satisfied with their bedrooms and living arrangements.
Each person had an individual care plan. These were sufficiently detailed to ensure people’s care was personalised and they were kept under review. Staff discussed people’s needs on a daily basis and people were given additional support when they required this. Referrals had been made to the relevant health professionals for advice and support when people’s needs had changed. This meant people received safe and effective care.
We observed good interaction between staff and people using the service. From our observations we found staff were respectful to people, attentive to their needs and treated people with kindness in their day to day care.
Meaningful activities were provided for small groups of people or on a one to one basis. Activities provided were creative and offered real experiences for people such as a cruise week and high tea served the traditional way. Visiting arrangements were good and visitors told us they were able to visit at any time and were made to feel welcome.
People were provided with a nutritionally balanced diet. All of the people we spoke with said that the food served in the home was very good. One person told us, “Like my friend I have no complaints about the food. We get regular meals, snacks and drinks throughout the day.” We saw that people had access to and helped themselves to a variety of snack foods and fresh fruit whenever they wanted.
People told us they were confident to raise any issue of concern and that it would be taken seriously. Complaints were monitored at senior management level and the information was used to improve the service. There were opportunities for people to give feedback about the service in quality monitoring surveys.
People told us the management of the service was good. Staff, relatives and people using the service told us they had confidence in the registered manager who was described as ‘very approachable’, ‘always there for us’ and ‘a very good manager’.
There were informal and formal systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service which would help identify any improvements needed. Resident and relative meetings were held providing an opportunity for people to express their views about the service with evidence their views had been listened to and used to improve their quality of life experience.
During the inspection we found the service was meeting the required legal obligations and conditions of registration.