Archived: Hart Lodge

Updated 25 May 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 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.

Before 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 information we already held about the service, including statutory notifications we had received and we contacted the local safeguarding and commissioning teams for feedback on the service.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector. During our inspection we observed how the staff interacted with people who used the service. We looked at three care plans, three staff files including supervision and training records, medicine records, policies, procedures and risk assessments. We spoke with the deputy manager and three care workers. We also spoke with seven people who used the service.

Updated 25 May 2017

We inspected Hart Lodge on 26 April 2017. This was an unannounced inspection. At the last inspection in 2015 the service was rated as Good.

Hart Lodge provides accommodation and 24 hour support with personal care for up to 11 adults with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection there were nine people using the service.

There was a registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection. 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 service was safe and had practices in place to protect people from harm. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and what to do if they had any concerns and how to report them. People who used the service told us they felt safe and protected from harm.

Risk assessments were personalised and staff knew what to do in an emergency situation.

Staffing levels were meeting the needs of the people who used the service and staff demonstrated that they had the relevant knowledge to support people with their care.

Recruitment practices were safe and records confirmed this.

Medicines were managed and administered safely and audited on a regular basis. People who used the service had risk assessments in place for their medicines.

Newly recruited care staff received an induction and shadowed senior members of staff. Training for care staff was provided on a regular basis and updated regularly. Staff spoke positively about the training they were provided.

Care staff demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and how they obtained consent on a daily basis. Consent was recorded in people’s care plans. People who used the service were free from restriction to go out independently and each person had a front door key.

People were supported with maintaining a balanced diet and the people who used the service prepared their own meals and had access to the kitchen without restriction.

People were supported to have access to healthcare services and receive on-going support. The service made referrals to healthcare professionals when necessary.

Positive relationships were formed between care staff and the people who used the service and care staff demonstrated how well they knew the people they cared for.

The service supported people to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care. People who used the service told us they felt in control of their care and involved with their care plans.

The service promoted the independence of the people who used the service and people felt respected and treated with dignity.

Care plans were detailed and contained relevant information about people who used the service and their needs. Care plans were reviewed and any changes were documented accordingly.

Concerns and complaints were encouraged and listened to and records confirmed this. People who used the service told us they knew how to make a complaint.

The registered manager and deputy manager for the service had good relationships with staff and the people who used the service.

The service had quality assurance methods in place and carried out regular audits. The service monitored the feedback from people who used the service by way of an annual questionnaire.