Archived: Langdon Foundation

This was an announced comprehensive inspection, which took place on 27 June 2016.

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 told us they felt safe at Langdon Foundation. Policies and procedures were in place to safeguard people from abuse and staff had received training in safeguarding adults. Staff were able to tell us how to identify and respond to allegations of abuse. They were also aware of the responsibility to ‘whistle blow’ on colleagues who they thought might be delivering poor care to people. We found that the service recognised the importance of how safe the residents felt. At weekly meeting residents were asked about their safety in the home and in the community.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Staff had been recruited safely and received the induction, training, support and supervision they required to be able to deliver effective care.

People had access to a range of health care professionals and safe systems were in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were identified and direction was given to staff on how to reduce or eliminate those risks, whilst maintaining and promoting people’s independence.

Arrangements were in place to ensure people’s rights and choices were protected should they be unable to consent to their care and treatment in the service. Staff had received training in and understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The service was working within the principles of the MCA.

The service placed great importance on person centred care and on promoting people’s independence and choice. Care records were detailed and contained information on what was important to and for people, their support needs, preferences and routines. They gave information about what people could do for themselves and how staff could promote people’s independence. Care records were reviewed regularly. People and their relatives had been involved in decisions about their care and in reviewing the support they received.

The service recognised and valued how people communicated. We saw that a variety of recognised communication systems were used including PECS, which is a system of picture and symbols, Makaton and British Sign Language. The service also recognised and valued people’s own communication methods. Policies and important information was available in pictorial form. This would help people who may have difficulty reading words to understand their rights and what they could expect from staff and the service.

There was a respectful approach to people whose behaviour might challenge the service. Records contained information about what may make someone upset or angry and guided staff in how to respond, what to say and what to do to help the person and diffuse situations.

People’s religious needs were respected and met. They were supported to observe and practise their culture and religion.

People chose what they ate and were involved in shopping and cooking. The service followed Beth- Din dietary laws. We saw that special attention was paid to the correct storage and preparation of food in line with this.

There was a wide range of activities available for people to join in if they wished. People were supported to maintain their interests and hobbies.

We observed that staff supported people in a patient and friendly way. Staff were polite and respectful. They took time to explain to people what they were being asked about or asked to do and gave people time to answer. There was a friendly rapport between staff and people who lived at the home.

The was a complaints procedure for people to use if they wanted to raise any concerns about the care and support they received. There was a system in place to record complaints and the service responses to them.

There was a robust system of weekly, monthly and annual quality monitoring and auditing in place. These included seeking people and their relatives views about the service. Senior managers of the service also met regularly to review audits and any issues or ideas about the service were discussed.

There was a system for ensuring health and safety checks within the home were completed. Equipment was appropriately maintained and serviced.

People we spoke with were positive about the registered manager, staff and the service. They told us the service was well managed. We found the registered manager to be enthusiastic, open and committed to person centred care and continually improving the service.

Staff told us they liked working for the organisation and were complimentary about the registered manager, their approach and the way they managed the service.

We found that people who use the service received care in a way that met their needs and preferences. People's health, safety and welfare was protected because the provider worked in co-operation with other health professionals.

We found that the provider had processes in place to ensure people who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse. We found there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. People's care records contained enough information to show how they were to be supported and cared for.