Archived: Lulworth

Updated 1 September 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 12 July 2016 and was unannounced.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert-by-experience had experience of learning disability services and a range of care environments.

Prior to the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the (PIR) and other information we held about the service. This included statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law. We used all this information to decide which areas to focus on during our inspection.

During the inspection we observed care provided by staff to people. We spoke with four people living in the home, one relative and three visitors to the home. We met separately with the new manager and the registered manager and spoke with the area manager. In addition we spoke with one support worker and the manager of Blake during our inspection. After the visit we held telephone discussions with a further two support workers.

We spent time looking at records including three care records and three staff files including training records. We also looked at staff rotas, medication administration records (MAR), health and safety maintenance checks, compliments and complaints, accidents and incidents and other records relating to the management of the service.

The home was last inspected on the 24 October 2013 and there were no concerns.

Updated 1 September 2016

The inspection took place on the 12 July 2016 and it was unannounced.

Lulworth is a residential home registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 16 people. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people living at the home. Lulworth provides support for people with learning disabilities, people on the autistic spectrum and people with physical disabilities. Some people may have additional mental health issues.

A registered manager was in post and had been registered since June 2011. 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. They told us they will be de-registering from Lulworth to focus on a home owned by the same provider, which is next door to Lulworth. The registered manager and newly appointed manager were both present throughout the inspection. The newly appointed manager had worked within the homes since 2010 and was appointed to the manager position in June 2016. They were about to apply to become the registered manager.

Lulworth is situated in walking distance from Worthing seafront, within close proximity to shops and other town amenities. Lulworth has one registration with the Care Quality commission however comprise two separate buildings named Lulworth and a smaller annex named Blake. Lulworth, the larger of the two buildings, accommodates 10 people; bedrooms were spread out over two floors. Communal areas included an open plan lounge leading into a dining area. Blake accommodates 5 people. Corridors were spacious and people who used wheelchairs were able to move freely and independently around both buildings. An attractive patio garden divides the two buildings and is easily accessible for people.

We found both buildings were clean, homely and had a friendly atmosphere. The ambience of the home was warm and inviting. Photographs of people were hung in communal areas and corridors throughout were decorated with items which were personal to people who lived there including craft items they had made. People styled their own bedrooms therefore each one was personalised and unique.

People told us both homes provided a safe service and there was enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were able to speak about what action they would take if they had a concern or felt a person was at risk of abuse. Risks to people had been identified and assessed and information was provided to staff on how to care for people safely and mitigate any risks.

People’s medicines were managed safely and administered by staff who had received specific medicine training. The home followed safe staff recruitment practices and provided a thorough induction process to prepare new staff for their role.

Staff implemented the training they received by providing care that met the needs of the people they supported. Staff received regular supervisions and spoke positively about the guidance they received from both managers.

Staff understood the requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and about people’s capacity to make decisions. They also understood the associated legislation under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and how to minimise restrictions to people’s freedom.

People could choose when, where and what they wanted to eat and were encouraged to be as independent as possible with their meal preparation. Additional drinks and snacks were observed being offered in between meals and staff knew people’s preferences.

Staff spoke kindly to people and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff knew people well and had a caring approach. People were involved in recruiting new staff to join the team.

People received personalised care. Each person was involved with their own care plan supported by keyworkers and managers. Care plans reflected information relevant to each individual and their abilities including people’s communication and health needs. People were encouraged to pursue their own interests and accessed a range of activities within the home and in the community.

There was a complaints policy in place. All complaints were treated seriously and were managed in line with this policy.

People were provided opportunities to give their views about the care they received from the service. Some people chose to use these opportunities to become more involved with their care and treatment. Relatives were also encouraged to give their feedback on how they viewed the service.

Managers demonstrated a ‘hands-on’ approach and knew people well. Links with health and social care professionals had been developed to meet the needs of people.

A range of quality audit processes were in place to measure the overall quality of the service provided to people.

We made a recommendation to the provider in the Caring domain about how elements of their caring and person-centred practice could be developed and embedded further to demonstrate sustained ‘outstanding’ practice.