Longridge Hall and Lodge

Longridge Hall and Lodge is a residential care home registered to accommodate up 60 people in need of personal care. Accommodation is provided over two floors. All rooms have en-suite facilities. On the days of the inspection there were 55 people living at the home.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Recruitment processes needed reviewing as some pre-employment checks were missing. We have made a recommendation about this in the 'Safe' section of this report. The provider acted during and immediately after the inspection to address any risks we found in this area.

Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and there were enough staff to meet people's needs and to ensure their safety. The provider's safeguarding processes were robust. Staff told us they had received training and support relevant to their roles and when they started employment. People told us they felt safe and were happy with the service they received. People received safe care from kind and caring staff. People were protected from the risk of harm and staff supported them to maintain their safety and wellbeing. People received their medicines as prescribed from staff who had been trained in medicines and had their competencies checked by managers.

People received high-quality person-centred care because the provider and managers had maintained effective oversight of the quality of care practice and records. Staff were committed to providing high-quality care and felt they were supported in their role by the registered manager and provider. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Quality assurance systems, audits and checks were robust and embedded within the service. The home, the environment and the equipment in use was clean and tidy. We did not find any shortfalls around care planning and record keeping. This assisted in ensuring people received proper and safe care. Staff felt valued and enjoyed working at the home. They also said the new provider had provided a good degree of stability and improvements to the home. They praised the support the registered manager provided.

People were supported to live healthy lives and had access to health and social care professionals. The home worked well with other organisations to provide effective and consistent care and healthcare professionals particularly praised the service in this area. People also had a good choice of meals. Drinks were available at any time of day and night. There was an activities programme on both floors of the home with dedicated activity coordinators. People said they particularly enjoyed the range of activities. People's views and opinions of the service were sought and acted on. People's rights were protected and their equality and diversity needs were respected.

People were confident in the management team at the home and praised how approachable they were. Relatives were similarly pleased with the way the home was managed. They felt confident their relations were safe and praised the friendly and caring attitudes of staff and managers. We noted good interactions between people, management and staff. The service made appropriate notifications to CQC and other authorities of safety incidents to ensure these incidents received appropriate oversight. Infection prevention control measures were robust.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for the service under the previous provider was requires improvement, published on 27 February 2019.

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection under the previous provider, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Longridge Hall and Lodge on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

We found the following examples of good practice:

We noted good practices in all of the areas we considered including the use of and disposal of personal protective equipment (PPE). Staff, management and visitors were using PPE correctly and there were robust procedures in place around the use of PPE.

The provider and registered manager had comprehensive processes to minimise the risk to people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection. These included regular testing of staff and at least every 28 days for people living in the home. Hand sanitiser and PPE were available throughout the home. There were signs to remind staff, visitors and people about the use of PPE, the importance of washing hands and regular use of hand sanitisers.

Where appropriate, and consistent with infection control rules, ‘socially-distanced' visits had been taking place. We noted the processes around this were in line with local rules and guidance. We noted they were regularly reviewed and adapted to reflect latest guidance and legislation.

There were three sets of visiting facilities in the home that should address all current and future controlled safe visiting situations. The provider and registered manager had been proactive around this and we noted it as an area of good practice. It would allow people to visit their loved ones in a safe way, consistent with the rules.

Visiting rules and process were communicated effectively to people using the service and their relatives. This was often by social media, emails and phone calls.

Infection control policy and people's risk assessments had been completed and revised following the pandemic so that people were protected in the event of becoming unwell or in the event of a COVID-19 outbreak in the home. The registered manager insisted people were tested before admission into the home.

People's mental wellbeing had been promoted by use of social media and hand held devices so people could contact their relatives and friends. The registered manager had comprehensive knowledge of good practice guidance and with other senior staff had attended 'high level' COVID-19 training. This had been cascaded to other staff to supplement their own specialised training.

There were sufficient staff to provide continuity of support and ensure safeguards were in place should there be a staff shortage.

Areas of the home could be segregated in the event of widespread infection so as to assist with appropriate isolation of people. The registered manager said separate staff members could be used to help in this situation.

Policies and infection control processes were regularly reviewed when guidance changed. A provider representative was the 'Champion' around keeping abreast of developments and held regular meetings with management staff so that latest guidance was put in to place as soon as possible.

The home was clean and hygienic. The service had designated cleaners. All staff had received pandemic related supervision and had access to appropriate support to manage their wellbeing should it be required.

We noted the home had a policy around the national COVID-19 vaccination programme. Staff and residents were encouraged to participate and were supported appropriately.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.