Archived: Sovereign Lodge

Updated 3 June 2015

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.

The inspection took place on 3 and 9 December 2014 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

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 PIR and other information we held about the home prior to our inspection. This included the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales.

During the inspection we talked with 10 people living at the home and with six relatives. We spoke with the registered manager and nine care and ancillary staff. We observed how staff interacted with and supported people, including during a mealtime. We looked at five people’s care records, 12 people’s medicine records and a range of other records related to the management of the service.

Updated 3 June 2015

The inspection took place on 3 and 9 December 2014 and was unannounced. This means the provider did not know we were coming. We last inspected Sovereign Lodge in November 2013. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the regulations we inspected.

Sovereign Lodge provides personal care for up to 44 older people and people with dementia. Nursing care is not provided. At the time of our inspection there were 41 people living at the home.

The home 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.

We found that people were provided with care that promoted their safety and welfare. Risks to personal safety were assessed and managed to reduce the potential of people being harmed. Staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities to protect people against the risks of abuse and unsafe care. The environment was safe and clean and equipped for people’s safety and comfort.

People were supported to maintain their health and access a range of health care services. There were appropriate arrangements for making sure people were given their prescribed medicines safely. A varied diet was offered and staff assisted people who were unable to eat and drink independently. Nutritional needs were closely monitored and dietetic advice was obtained when necessary.

Suitable recruitment checks had been undertaken before new staff started working at the home. Sufficient numbers of staff were employed to safely meet people’s needs and provide continuity of care. Staff were trained in safe working practices and were given training specific to meeting people’s needs, including specialist dementia training. All staff were supervised and had their work performance appraised to ensure they were supported and competent in their roles.

People and their representatives were consulted about and involved in reviewing their care and treatment. Formal processes were followed to uphold people’s rights when they did not have the capacity to make important decisions about their care.

Staff were caring and considerate in their approach and treated people with respect. They were aware of people’s individual needs and preferences and knew how to support them. Each person had individualised care plans for meeting their needs. These care plans were regularly evaluated to check they remained effective. Activities, events and outings were provided for stimulation and to help people meet their social needs. There were flexible routines in the home and people made choices in their daily living.

People living at the home and most of the families we spoke with were satisfied with the care and had good relationships with the staff. There were systems in place for making complaints and to give feedback about the service. Any concerns or complaints were taken seriously and promptly investigated and acted on.

The registered manager was committed to developing the service and communicated openly with people and their families, and with staff, about the running of the home. The home’s standards were continuously checked to assure and improve the quality of the service that people received.