Poppy Lodge Care Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

Individual risk assessments were in place to allow for safe visiting at the service, and for people to enjoy visits to the local community or out with their relatives safely. When visits were unable to go ahead video and telephone calls had been used.

The registered manager had followed government guidance on infection prevention control measures and had kept these up to date.

All staff had received training on infection prevention control and how to use PPE effectively.

People and staff had regularly been tested for COVID-19 and where positive results had been returned the registered manager had acted quickly to support people and mitigate risks.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. There were systems in place to minimise the risk of infection. People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. People’s needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff. Medication was dispensed by staff who had received training to do so.

People were safeguarded from the potential of harm and their freedoms protected. Staff were provided with training in Safeguarding Adults from abuse, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People had sufficient amounts to eat and drink to ensure that their dietary and nutritional needs were met. The service worked well with other professionals to ensure that people's health needs were met. People's care records showed that, where appropriate, support and guidance was sought from allied health care professionals. The environment was appropriately designed and adapted to meet people’s needs.

Staff were well trained and attentive to people's needs. Staff could demonstrate that they knew people well. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

People were provided with the opportunity to participate in activities which interested them at the service. These activities were diverse to meet people’s social needs. People knew how to make a complaint should they need to. People were provided with the appropriate care and support at the end of their life.

The registered manager had a number of ways of gathering people’s views, they held regular meetings with people and their relatives and used questionnaires to gain feedback. The registered manager carried out quality monitoring to help ensure the service was running effectively and to make continual improvements.

Poppy Lodge provides accommodation and personal care without nursing for up to 16 persons some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection 14 people were living at the service.

The service had 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.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. People’s needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff. Medication was dispensed by staff who had received training to do so.

People were safeguarded from the potential of harm and their freedoms protected. Staff were provided with training in Safeguarding Adults from abuse, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The manager was up-to-date with recent changes to the law regarding DoLS and knew how to make a referral if required.

People had sufficient amounts to eat and drink to ensure that their dietary and nutrition needs were met. The service worked well with other professionals to ensure that people's health needs were met. People's care records showed that, where appropriate, support and guidance was sought from health care professionals, including a doctor, district nurse and dementia nurse specialist.

Staff were attentive to people's needs. Staff were able to demonstrate that they knew people well. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

People were provided with the opportunity to participate in activities which interested them. These activities were diverse to meet people’s social needs. People knew how to make a complaint; complaints had been resolved efficiently and quickly.

The service had a number of ways of gathering people’s views including talking with people, staff, and relatives. The manager carried out a number of quality monitoring audits to help ensure the service was running effectively and to make improvements.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

When we arrived at the service the staff asked to see our identification. This meant that the appropriate actions were taken to ensure that the people who used the service were protected from others who did not have the right to access their home.

We saw records which showed that the health and safety in the service was regularly checked. This included regular checks on such areas as fire safety equipment, wheelchairs, hoists as well as checks on the environment. This told us people were looked after safely.

We saw that the staff were provided with training in safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant that staff were provided with the information that they needed to ensure that people were safeguarded.

We saw that staff were recruited appropriately and employed after appropriate checks were completed. This meant people were cared for safely by staff who had the correct skills.

Is the service effective?

People's care records showed that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. The records were regularly reviewed and updated which meant that staff were provided with up to date information about how people's needs were to be met.

Is the service caring?

We saw that people were relaxed in the company of each other and staff. We saw that staff were attentive to people's needs. Staff we spoke with were able to demonstrate they knew people well. We saw staff treated people with dignity and respect.

Is the service responsive?

People who used the service were provided with the opportunity to participate in activities which interested them. People's choices were taken in to account and listened to. This was demonstrated in minutes we saw which related to meetings with people who used the service. People's care records showed that, where appropriate, support and guidance was sought from health care professionals, including a doctor, social worker, chiropodist and district nurse. This told us that the service worked well with other professionals and that people's needs were met.

Is the service well-led

The service had a number of quality assurance measures in place. The manager was very proactive in monitoring and looking for ways to improve the service. This included taking part in pilot studies with the tissue viability nurse. We saw the quality of the service had been maintained.