Leofric Lodge

Updated 8 September 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 comprehensive inspection was carried out by one inspector over two days. We visited people who used the service on the 9 August 2017 and visited the office to speak with the registered manager and staff, and view paperwork on the 10 August 2017.

Prior to the inspection the provider had been asked to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This form asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We found the PIR was an accurate reflection of the service.

Prior to the office visit we reviewed the information we held about the service. We looked at the statutory notifications the service had sent us. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law. We reviewed the ‘Share your experience’ information people who used the service had sent us since the last inspection.

We contacted the local authority commissioners to find out their views of the service provided. Commissioners are people who contract care and support services paid for by the local authority. We also contacted the local Healthwatch about information they held about the service. Healthwatch is an independent consumer organisation, which promotes the views and experiences of people who use health and social care services. Commissioners and Healthwatch had no information to share with us.

During our visits we spoke with nine people who used the service, three relatives, the registered manager, the provider’s district manager, the care co-ordinator, two team leaders and three care staff. We reviewed four people’s care records to see how their care and support was planned and delivered. We looked at four staff recruitment files, staff training records, records of complaints and records associated with the provider's quality checking systems.

Updated 8 September 2017

Leofric Lodge is a ‘housing with care’ scheme. People live in their own flats and have tenancy agreements with Anchor Trust. The personal care and support people require is provided at prearranged times by a team of staff who work at the scheme. There were 46 people living at Leofric Lodge at the time of our inspection visit, 27 people received assistance with personal care.

At the last inspection in January 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The inspection took place on, 9 and 10 August 2017 and was announced. We told the provider before the visit we were coming so they could arrange for us to visit people who lived at Leofric Lodge and so they could arrange to be there.

A requirement of the provider’s registration is that they have a registered manager. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection.

A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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. The registered manager had responsibility for managing three of the provider’s ‘housing with care’ services in the Coventry area.

People continued to receive care which protected them from avoidable harm and abuse. Risks to people’s safety were identified and measures were in place to help reduce these risks. People who required assistance to take their medicines were supported by staff who had received training to do this safely.

There was enough staff to allocate all the visits people required and to meet people's needs safely. Recruitment checks were completed on new staff to ensure they were suitable to support people who used the service. Staff had regular checks on their practice to make sure they continued to support people safely.

People said staff arrived around the time arranged and stayed long enough to do everything that was needed without having to rush. People were visited by a team of regular staff that they knew and who they said were kind and caring. People said the support they received helped them to live independently in their own homes.

People were provided with care which continued to be effective in meeting their individual needs. Staff received regular training that provided them with the skills and knowledge to support people’s needs. The registered manager and staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Staff respected people’s decisions and gained people’s consent before they provided personal care. When needed, arrangements were in place to support people to have enough to eat and drink and remain in good health.

The service remained responsive to people’s needs and wishes. People were provided with care and support which was individual to them. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity and promoted their independence which people appreciated. People’s care and support needs were kept under review and staff responded when there were changes in these needs.

People were encouraged to raise concerns and were confident these would be responded to. The management team used feedback from people to assist them in making improvements to the service.

The managers and staff had a good understanding of people’s individual needs and preferences. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and had regular supervision and observations of their practice to make sure they carried these out safely.

Staff said they received good support from the management team. They said the service was well led and that senior staff were always available to give advice. Management and staff told us there was good team work and that all staff worked well together. Feedback from people was sought and used as an opportunity for improving the service people received. There continued to be effective and responsive processes for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided.