Archived: Latimer Lodge Residential Home

Below is a summary of what we found. It is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with people living in the home, and with the staff supporting them, and on looking at records.

Is the service safe?

People told us that they felt safe. Staff understood their role in keeping people safe from abuse.

Training, supervision and appraisal was not taking place regularly and this could put people at risk because staff may not have the appropriate skills they need. In particular, planned training in the use of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in care homes, had not taken place, and no date for training had been arranged.

The fabric of the building was well maintained and systems such as fire prevention equipment were serviced regularly. We observed staff providing safe and appropriate care during our inspection. However, care plans and risk assessments were not up-to-date or detailed enough. This put people at risk of receiving unsafe care.

We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to supporting staff and maintaining accurate care records.

Is the service effective?

People's mobility and other needs were taken into accoung in relation to signage within the building, so that they could move around freely and safely. In this respect the service was effective in creating an environment that enabled people to stay independent as far as possible.

People told us that their needs were being met. However there was no effective method of obtaining feedback from people living in the home, or their relatives. The manager told us that questionnaires and the suggestion box designed to obtain feedback were not particularly effective, but there were no alternative methods in use.

We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to involving people and obtaining formal feedback on how effective the service is.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and caring staff. We saw staff talking patiently with people, encouraging them in what they were doing. They spoke respectfully to people, explained what they were doing, and gave people time to respond. People told us that they liked the staff. One person said, 'It's lovely ' I'm spoilt.' All of the staff we spoke with told us how much they liked working in the service. One of them said that they treated the people living there like they would their own parents.

Is the service responsive?

We observed lunch being served during our visit and saw that staff responded to requests for different drinks or food options. People told us they knew how to make a complaint, but none had needed to do so since the last inspection. They said they could talk to the staff if they wanted to suggest changes, for example, to menus or daytime activities. We also saw examples of suggested changes in the most recent minutes of the residents meeting. However, this took place five months ago. The manager told us that they usually used informal ways of responding to people's needs and preferences.

Is the service well-led?

All of the staff we spoke with said that they would talk to the manager if they had any concerns about how the service was being run, or if they witnessed poor care. They said that they felt comfortable doing this.

The service did not have a regular quality assurance system. Some audits of practice had been done, but there was no systematic review of essential areas of care, including individual risk assessments. Other recorded ways of monitoring quality were not used regularly. For example, the health and safety committee had only met once, and the most recent residents meeting was held five months ago. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to make sure that quality and risks are monitored effectively.

The home was clean and smelt fresh and staff were aware of how to protect people from the risks of infection. One person told us, 'they (staff) make sure it is clean.'

People were protected against the risk of abuse because staff understood about

safeguarding issues and whistle blowing and knew how to report concerns.

The provider undertook appropriate pre-employment checks.

One person said "I have been here for eight years and I am really happy here. I do what I want to do and like being in my room". A second person said "I like my own company and my room is like a haven to me. The staff are very kind and always treat me with respect. I do get worried that the staff have a lot to do and they have less time for people like me who are more independent".

Three people told us they were happy with their care and had been involved in planning their care plans. We spoke to staff who demonstrated a good knowledge of the needs and preferences of the people they were caring for. We saw that risk assessments were in place which showed that risks were identified and control measures put in place to minimise risks but assisted people to maintain their independence.

People said they felt safe and secure at the home. One person said "I am very keen to do everything I can for myself and I am able to have as much freedom here as I want". We saw that people moved freely around the home and made choices about how they spent their time. People told that they enjoyed the food and the cook 'spoilt' them.

We observed that staff spoke to people in a polite and respectful manner and there was a good rapport between people and staff at the home.