We carried out a review of the data available to us about Leofric Lodge on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Leofric Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
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.
We undertook an announced inspection of Leofric Lodge on 21 January 2015. We told the provider before our visit that we would be coming. This was so people could give consent for us to visit them in their flats to talk with them.
Leofric Lodge provides housing with care. People live in their own home and have a tenancy agreement with Anchor Trust. Staff provide personal care and support at pre-arranged times and in emergencies. The unit consists of 46 flats, at the time of our visit there were 40 people using the service.
The service did not have 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. The provider had recently made changes to the management of the service. An interim manager had been appointed who was in the process of applying to register with us.
People who used the service said they felt safe living at Leofric Lodge. Staff understood their responsibilities around keeping people safe and there were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. These included a risk management process, a thorough staff recruitment procedure and an effective procedure for managing people’s medications.
There were enough suitably trained staff to meet people’s individual care needs. Staff understood about gaining people’s consent before they provided personal care and respected the decisions people made about their daily lives. People were supported to maintain their independence and were able to live their lives as they chose.
People were happy with the care they received and said they got on well with the staff who provided their support. People said staff maintained their privacy and dignity when providing personal care; were respectful and provided care in the way they preferred. Care plans and assessments contained information that supported staff to meet people’s needs. People said they were listened to and were confident they could raise any concerns about their care or support. There were processes in place for people to express their views and opinions about the service.
People and staff told us they had new managers who had implemented changes to how the service operated. Most people said the service was well managed and they were happy with the service they received. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. This was through feedback from people who used the service, staff meetings and a programme of checks and audits.
When we visited the service on 15 April 2014 we found the provider was not meeting the required standard for ensuring people's care and welfare needs were managed safely. This was because identified risks associated with people's care and support was not being managed consistently. We found risk assessments had not always been completed for identified risks. Where assessments had been completed, these had not always been updated when care plans had been reviewed. We could not be certain all risks associated with people's care needs were being managed appropriately or consistently to make sure people who used the service remained safe and well.
We set a compliance action that let the provider know they needed to improve. We also asked the provider to send a report to tell us what they had done to become compliant. In April 2014 we received a report from the provider that told us what they had done and what they planned to do to improve the service provided.
We visited the service on 20 August 2014 to check the actions taken by the provider and to make sure improvements had been made. We did not speak to people who used the service during this follow up visit. This report should be read in conjunction with the inspection report from 16 April 2014.
We found improvements had been made to the risk management procedures and the provider was meeting the required standard for ensuring people's care and welfare needs were safely met by the service.
The organisation had changed the name of Leofric Court to Leofric Lodge. We had not been notified of this change and at the time of our visit the service was registered as Leofric Court.
When we visited Leofric Court we spoke with the manager, team leaders and three care workers. We gathered evidence of people's experiences by speaking with seven people who used the service.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.
Is the service safe?
We saw people's care had been arranged according to their personal needs.
We found there was a process in place for managing risks associated with people's care. From the information recorded in care plans we could not be certain all risks were managed appropriately or consistently to make sure people who used the service remained safe and well.
People we spoke with told us they had regular reviews to make sure care plans were accurate and up to date.
We found staff completed the required training. This enabled them to work with people in a safe way.
People who used the service told us they felt confident any concerns or complaints they raised would be investigated.
We asked people if they felt safe at Leofric Court. All the people we spoke with told us they did. For example, one person said 'Oh yes, very safe".
We found the premises were safe, and suitable for the purpose of the service.
Is the service effective?
People told us the care they received met their needs. People told us they had been involved in planning their care. We saw care plans were reviewed and updated regularly so care staff could continue to provide the correct level of support.
Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the needs of people who used the service.
Leofric Court provides a service to people living with dementia. We noted there was not always a life history in people's files. This meant staff did not have information about people's backgrounds and past experiences to help them understand and support people with dementia more effectively.
People told us there was a consistent team of care workers that arrived around the time people expected and stayed long enough to do everything they needed.
We found staff had regular supervision. Their practice was observed by senior staff to make sure they provided care and support in line with the provider's policies and procedures.
Is the service caring?
People told us they could continue to maintain their independence and do things for themselves. One person told us, 'They support you to do what you can and help you with the rest.'
We asked people if care workers treated them the way they liked. People said they did. Comments from people included,
'I love it here. All the staff treat me very well.'
'Staff are very good to me."
We asked people if care workers were polite and respected their privacy. We were told, 'Very kind and very polite.' Another said, 'Always.'
During our visit we observed staff speaking with people in a friendly manner.
Is the service responsive?
The service had systems in place to monitor the care provided to people. This included regular reviews with people, tenants meetings and client satisfaction questionnaires.
People told us that concerns were listened to and acted on.
Staff said they had a handover at the start of each shift to update them of any changes in people's needs since they were last on duty.
We saw there were systems in place for people to alert staff if they required assistance. Call bells were installed in people's flats, the communal areas and most people wore neck pendants. People we spoke with said staff responded to call bells promptly.
Is the service well led?
The service had a management structure in place and senior staff understood their role and associated responsibilities.
We found the service had an effective quality assurance system in place. This included regular reviews with people who used the service, tenants meetings and satisfaction questionnaires.
The service had auditing procedures in place to make sure staff provided care to people as recorded in their care plans and worked in line with the provider's policies and procedures.
People who used the service and care workers we spoke with told us they were able to speak with staff in the office and raise any issues or concerns they had.
People who used the service told us they were satisfied with the service they received. Comments from people included,
'I have been made to feel very welcome since moving here.'
'I am very happy here.'
We looked at the care records of four people who used the service. We were satisfied people were receiving the care they had consented to. We found care plans provided staff with sufficient information about people's support needs. We found staff supported people to maintain independence. One person told us, 'I do everything for myself I like to be independent.'
People told us care staff stayed long enough to do everything they needed. One person said, 'The staff couldn't be nicer. They always respect my privacy. They come when I expect them to and never rush me.'
We found that people received their medication as prescribed. We found there was sufficient care staff to meet the current needs of people living at Leofric Court.
Records showed the agency had systems in place to monitor the care provided and for managing identified risks. People said they were happy with the care they received. One person told us 'I love it here, the staff, everything. There is always something going on that you can join in with. Everyone is friendly and helpful and the staff are just wonderful.'
We required the provider to make improvements to their recruitment practices.
We found that provider had taken the necessary action to achieve compliance and improve outcomes for people using the service.
41 people living at Leofric Court were receiving a personal care service at the time of our inspection visit.
We spoke with three people using the service at Leofric Court. We also spoke with the registered manager and two care staff.
People we spoke with said that they were consulted and involved in planning their care. People were satisfied with the care they received. Their comments included, 'I feel like I am in control of what is happening to me.'
People we spoke with said care staff were friendly and polite. They said staff stayed long enough to do everything they needed
People told us they felt safe living at Leofric Court. Records showed that staff received training and supervision to make sure people using the service got effective and appropriate care.
We were concerned that Leofric Court did not have effective procedures for recruiting staff. This meant people using the service could not be confident that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.