Archived: Longlands Care Home

Longlands Care Home provides personal and nursing care for up to 51 people in one purpose built facility. At the time of inspection, 43 people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service

People received warm, competent care and support and relatives spoke positively about staff and management. People felt safe and they were protected by staff who understood their responsibilities and how to keep people safe. People were protected from risks by detailed, regularly updated risk assessments.

People had comprehensive care plans which detailed their strengths and promoted their dignity and independence. Their communication needs were assessed and recorded in detail and staff were observed appropriately interacting with people.

People and their relatives were involved in the planning and delivery of their care, and were regularly asked for feedback which was acted upon appropriately.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Safe recruitment practices were followed. Staff were well trained and understood the needs of the people they supported. We saw that there was a relaxed atmosphere and people and staff had good, caring relationships.

The home was well equipped, clean and tidy and good infection control practices were being followed.

People took part in extensive activities they enjoyed. Visitors were welcomed. The home had good relationships with health and social care professionals. People had a healthy, varied diet and ate food they enjoyed.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. When there were problems, the registered manager dealt with them appropriately and worked to reduce the likelihood of recurrence.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was good (published 26 September 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Longlands provides accommodation for older people requiring support with their personal care and nursing needs. The service can accommodate up to 51 people. At the time of our inspection there were 37 people using the service. The home is divided into three distinct areas which are situated over the two floors of the home. On the first floor there was Pippin area which provided care for older people with complex nursing needs, Minstrel which provided residential care for older people and Jay which provided respite care for older people. On the ground floor Primrose and Kingfisher areas provided residential care for people living with dementia and in Siskin and Harlequin areas respite care was available for people living with dementia. People live in the area that is best suited to their assessed needs.

At the last inspection September 2016 the service was rated as Requires Improvement; at this inspection we found that improvements had been made.

The service had 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.

People felt safe and there were risk assessments in place which ensured that measures were put in place to mitigate the risk. People could be assured that they were protected from any avoidable harm or abuse. Staff knew how to protect people and recruitment practices ensured that people were cared for by staff that were suitable and safe to support them.

People were cared for by staff that were kind, friendly and attentive to people’s needs. However, at times interaction with people in parts of the home was task focussed. Staff understood people’s needs and preferences. They ensured that people were treated with respect and protected their privacy and dignity.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and people received their medicines on time. There was a system in place to ensure that medicines were safely administered, stored and disposed of when no longer required.

People were involved in decisions about the way in which their care and support was provided. Staff understood the need to undertake specific assessments where people lacked capacity to consent to their care and / or their day to day routines.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Care plans detailed people’s preferences, likes and dislikes and the plans were regularly reviewed to ensure they remained relevant to meeting people’s needs.

People were encouraged to follow their interests and there was a variety of activities that people could take part in if they wished. Families were welcomed and encouraged to take part in activities with their loved ones.

People’s nutritional needs were being met and people were given a choice as to what they ate and where they ate. Support was available if needed and staff sat with people to help encourage people to eat.

Relatives spoke positively about the care their loved one received. People’s health needs were carefully considered and relevant health care professionals were appropriately involved in people’s care.

Staff were supported through regular supervisions and undertook training which helped them to understand the needs of the people they were supporting. Quality assurance systems and audits were in place which helped to monitor the quality and safety of the service.

There were opportunities for people and their families to share their experience of the home. The registered manager and deputy manager were visible and open to feedback, actively looking at ways to improve the service.

This inspection took place on the 15 and 16 August 2016 and was unannounced.

Longlands provides accommodation for older people requiring support with their personal care and nursing needs. The service can accommodate up to 51 people. At the time of our inspection there were 36 people using the service. The home is divided into three distinct areas which are situated over the two floors of the home. On the first floor there was Pippin area which provided care for older people with complex nursing needs, Minstrel which provided residential care for older people and Jay which provided respite care for older people. On the ground floor Primrose and Kingfisher areas provided residential care for people living with dementia and in Siskin and Harlequin areas respite care was available for people living with dementia. People live in the area that is best suited to their assessed needs.

The service had 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.

There were not always sufficient staff to meet the needs of people in a timely way and in some areas of the home staff did not have the time to interact with people outside of meeting people’s basic care needs. People’s experience of care differed depending on where they lived within the home.

There were a variety of audits in place that monitored the quality and safety of the service; however these did not identify that on some occasions care staff were task focussed and lacked interaction with people who used the service.

People’s nutritional needs were being met but people did not always feel the standard of the food was consistent and there was sufficient choice.

People received care from staff that were friendly, kind and thoughtful and their right to privacy and dignity respected. Care staff knew how to protect people from harm and people’s health care was carefully considered and relevant health care professionals were appropriately involved in people’s care.

Relatives spoke positively about the care their relative received and felt that they could approach management and staff to discuss any issues or concerns they had. People had care plans which detailed their needs, preferences, likes and dislikes.

Staff were supported through regular supervisions and undertook training which helped them to understand the needs of the people they were supporting. People were involved in decisions about the way in which their care and support was provided. Staff understood the need to undertake specific assessments where people lacked capacity to consent to their care and / or their day to day routines.

There were opportunities for people and their families to share their experience of the home. Management was visible and open to feedback, actively looking at ways to improve the service.

People who used the service for short stay respite care told us they were able to continue with their daily routines as much as possible and make decisions about their daily lives; such as their choice of food, clothing and personal routines.

We found that staff received regular support from their line managers and training appropriate to their roles and responsibilities. We saw that the provider had appropriate systems in place to regularly monitor and review the quality of the service provision.

At our last inspection we had found that people's plans of care were disorganised and it was difficult to locate important information about the care and treatment being provided for people using the service. We saw that improvements to the recording of people's care and treatment and people's care was being regularly reviewed and updated as and when their needs changed.

We found that two people were receiving care and treatment for pressure ulceration, however one person did not have a pressure area care plan in place to plan and record the treatment they were receiving. We also found that some care records were disorganised and important information was difficult to locate within the files. This could place people at risk of receiving inappropriate care and treatment.