Archived: Angel Lodge

Updated 30 April 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The inspection was carried out on 21 February 2019 by an adult social care inspector.

Service and service type:

Angel Lodge is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and a representative of the management company is the Nominated Individual registered with CQC. This means that they and the provider company are responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

The inspection was unannounced. This means we did not give the registered manager any notice of the inspection.

What we did:

Before the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service including any notifications we had received. A notification must be sent to the Care Quality Commission every time a significant incident takes place which has or may affect people using the service.

We looked at the Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a document the provider sends to us describing what they do well and any planned improvements. We also read the previous inspection report and the provider’s reports of actions taken to improve the service.

During the inspection visit we spoke with three people who use the service to obtain their feedback on the quality of care provided. We also spoke with the registered manager and a member of staff. We looked at three people’s care files, two staff files which included their recruitment, training and supervision records as well as policies and records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 30 April 2019

About the service:

Angel Lodge is registered to provide accommodation for a maximum of five adults. On the day of our inspection there were five adults living in the home with mild learning disabilities and/or mental health conditions.

Angel Lodge is located on a residential road in South Croydon close to local shops and good transport links.

At the time of our inspection the provider was in administration. This means that the role of the provider company had been taken over by a licensed insolvency practitioner. The service was being run by a management company instructed by the licensed insolvency practitioner.

Rating at last inspection:

At the previous inspection in March 2018, the service was rated good overall. Although we found good practice, the rating for the key-question “Well-led” was requires improvement because the provider had not demonstrated consistent good practice over a significant period of time.

Why we inspected:

We inspected Angel Lodge on 21 February 2019. This was a planned comprehensive inspection to check that the service remained good and continued to be well-led. At this inspection the overall rating to this service remains Good.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were protected from abuse because staff knew how to recognise abuse and report any concerns. There were enough staff during the day and night to support people safely and meet their needs. Staff had been trained in the safe administration of medicines and there were systems in place to make sure that people received their medicines as prescribed.

Some parts of the home were in need of redecoration including the kitchen, hallway and some people’s bedrooms.

The home was clean and tidy. Staff were aware of the importance of protecting people from the risk and spread of infection and followed the provider’s infection control procedures.

People were cared for by staff who had the knowledge, skills and experience required to carry out their roles effectively. Staff worked well as a team and felt supported by the registered manager.

The registered manager and staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the specific requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and to maintain a balanced diet. People’s physical and mental health were regularly monitored and they had access to a variety of external healthcare professionals and services.

People’s needs were assessed before they began to use the service to make sure staff could meet their needs. People and their relatives were involved in their care planning and felt in control of the care and support they received.

The care people received had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service lived as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People were supported by staff who were caring and committed to providing care which met people’s needs. People were satisfied with the quality of care and support they received. Staff respected people’s right to choose every aspect of their care and how they spent their time day to day. People led full and active lives which reflected their age, gender and interests.

There was a consistent staff team who knew people well. People and staff had a good rapport and there was a calm, relaxed atmosphere in the home.

People had regular opportunities to feedback to staff on the support they received, their home environment and the changes they wished to make.

The registered manager was very involved in the day-to- day running of the service and was accessible to people and staff. People felt able to approach her with any comments, suggestions or complaints and felt their comments would be acted on.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of care people received.

For more details, please see the full report.