Godden Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We looked at 6 quality statements. People received safe care from staff who understood their personal and health care needs and followed healthcare guidance from professionals. Staff knew how to safely support people around their individual risks. There were enough care staff who had been suitably recruited. The provider ensured people were safeguarded from the risk of harm. Infection prevention control measures were in place and the administration of medicines was managed safely by competent and trained staff.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People and their relatives told us staff supported them to access different health and social care services when needed and their care was well coordinated. There was continuity of care for people from hospital or their home. A person told us, “If I am in pain, I can tell them [staff] and then the doctor comes.”

The registered manager, deputy manager and unit managers worked together to assess and review people’s needs to ensure the service could give them a good quality of life.

Effective communication ensured smooth transitions with and between healthcare services. A professional told us, “I am very proud that the service has decreased hospital admissions with the co-operation between the community nurse team and the service’s nurses.”

People’s changing needs and new admissions were discussed within the staff team during regular meetings. Referrals for professional support were made such as to the GP, speech and language therapy team, podiatry and mental health team for additional help and advice when needed.

People and their family members told us they were safe at Godden Lodge. A person said, “I can talk to them [staff] and they listen, I can now share if I am worried, I had too many falls at home but not here; I feel safe.” Another told us, “I do feel safe knowing all the doors are locked at night. It is knowing staff are walking round, staff ask visitors walking round who they are and who they are looking for.” A family member said, “We are very happy with everything about the home and know that [relative] is safe. I’m so content with [relative] being looked after here.” Another told us, “It’s very safe for my [relative]. The staff are all extremely good, and I cannot fault anything in anyway”.

Staff undertook training in safeguarding people from abuse. Information about keeping people safe and any incidents that had happened were shared with staff to help prevent them from happening again. A staff member said, “Any concerns I had, I would escalate to my line manager, and I would be very comfortable doing that as they would listen and deal with it.” Another told us, I would protect people from harm and if I saw a person wasn’t right, or noticed something about them that was not their usual way, I would immediately tell [name of manager].”

A system for reporting, managing and recording safeguarding concerns was in place. The registered manager demonstrated how they learnt from incidents which affected people's safety and had implemented a process of thorough investigation, actions and outcomes and lesson learnt to prevent them from happening again. They shared concerns quickly and worked well with relevant local authorities to be open and transparent in any investigation.

People, their relatives and representatives were involved in discussing risks to people’s health and safety. People’s care plans recorded discussions about risks, ways to mitigate them and making choices and decisions about their day to day lives. A person told us, “I feel in control of what I want. I know they write down in my care plan about things that might be difficult for me. If I am unhappy, I tell them.” Another said, “I tell them to be careful with my legs, I am keeping as independent as I can be. I have lovely staff and only have to tell the new ones what to do.” A family member said, “I am power of attorney and very involved in [relatives] care plan.” People were encouraged to remain independent, and we observed people walking around the service, with assistance from staff where required. Staff encouraged people to use their walking equipment to reduce the risk of falls and to sit in the correct way when eating if at risk of choking.

Staff knew people's needs and the risks associated with their care and support. Information was recorded and accessible to staff including any reviews and changes to their care arrangements. Care plans identified areas where risks could be minimised such as moving and handling people, mobility, eating and drinking, skin care, and being cared for in bed with bed rails. Equipment such as walking aids, airflow mattresses to reduce pressure sores and sensor mats to assist with reducing risk of falls were used appropriately. A staff member said, “I do my regular training like moving people safely and we are checked to make sure we know the risks to people. At handover, we are updated so you know if there are any changes you need to know about.”

Care plans contained information to provide staff with the knowledge in how to support people to manage risks with choice, dignity and freedom to express themselves. During the assessment, we reviewed people’s care plans and risk assessments which provided information about potential risks to people. Systems and processes were in place to cascade information regarding changes to people’s care, and these were reviewed regularly by the senior and nursing staff. People’s capacity to make decisions was also considered including any restrictions on their freedoms, such as the use of bed rails, sensor mats and leaving the service alone. People’s care plans reflected risks which may need them to have restrictions placed upon them for their safety. Appropriate professionals had been consulted to provide specialist advice and support. For example, the speech and language team, falls prevention team and the mental health team. The GP surgery was supportive and worked closely with the service including weekly visits to minimise people’s risks and enhance their health and wellbeing.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People and their relatives told us there were enough care staff to provide the care and support people required. A person told us, “Staff make sure I am clean, wash me every day. I am not allowed to be left alone, always someone there and that makes me feel good.” A family member told us, “[Relative] is quite safe here, they [staff] are very good with the hoist, always 2 staff, they take their time and know how things are done. They are good at that.” Another told us, “The care is very good but not always staff to do nice things with [relative] to give them company and a bit of interest in something [relative] likes. A person told us, “One of the staff has popped in twice already this morning, it depends on if they are busy, I accept the waiting time, it does not get me down, they are really good. At night time they are quicker than in the day time.”

Staff were positive about working at the service. They told us there were enough staff with different skills and experience to support people safely. A staff member told us, “For now it’s okay, sometimes an issue when annual leave or sick other than that, it feels manageable.” Another said, “Sometimes, we have to get agency staff, or they will put the open shift out for cover, and it will get picked up.” A third said, “I don’t think people wait, everyone helps, even the unit manager will help when we need help, we all help each other.” Staff had the appropriate skills and experience and worked as a team. Staff were capable and professional and adapted their approach to individual people’s needs. We observed polite and warm interaction and communication between people and staff who worked at the service.

On the day of our assessment, we found there was not enough staff available or deployed appropriately to provide social and leisure activities to support people in 2 out of the 3 units, namely Victoria and Boyce. The registered manager explained the 3 activities staff members covered the week including the weekends, which meant they had days off in the week. Staffing was not arranged to cover these times and therefore people were not always getting their social and leisure needs met.

Systems were in place to ensure there were suitably qualified, skilled and experienced nursing and care staff. We saw rotas were planned and organised and accurately reflected staff on duty on the day of the assessment. The registered manager advised there was no specific training with regards to staff supporting people with their wellbeing, activities, and social needs. A wellbeing lead had been employed to address the level of activities and engagement with a view to its improvement. There was an induction programme for new staff including face to face training, shadowing more experienced staff and competency checks. Staff completed nationally recognized training such as the care certificate or diplomas in social care and nursing and had support, supervision and staff meetings to share learning and review performance. Appropriate checks were in place before staff started work including taking up references and a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. DBS provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

People and their family members told us the service was kept clean and hygienic. A family member told us, “The staff always wear gloves and aprons. [Relative’s] room is kept clean, the unit is always being cleaned, the cleaners are very friendly.”

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to detect and control the risk of infection. They were knowledgeable about infection control procedures and had received training in how to manage cleanliness and report any issues of concern. Supervision was provided and staff felt well supported. A staff member told us, “I love working here and like to know people have a clean home.” We observed housekeeping staff communicating with people as they cleaned their rooms and the communal areas, with a smile and warm greetings.

The service was very clean in all areas and on all units. There were good systems in place to audit and monitor the cleanliness of the service and prevent the risk of infection. Cleaning schedules were followed and maintained and daily meetings with housekeeping staff ensured good communication and monitoring.

People received their medicines as prescribed and in a polite and unhurried way. Where people could consent to their medicines, they were asked how they wanted to take them for example on a spoon, one tablet at a time or all together. A person told us, “Medicines they put in your hand, none missed, I just take it when they bring it.” People were asked if they required any pain relief for those prescribed ‘as required’ medicines. We saw staff responded quickly to a request from one person for pain relief. We observed staff administering the medicine safely and checked later with the person to ensure the medicine was effective.

We observed people receiving their medicines when they needed them and in a safe way. The staff member followed safe administration practices during our observation of the medicine’s being given at lunch time. This included controlled medicines and anticipatory medicines for people at the end of their life. Staff were trained and received checks on their competency to administer medicines.

The medicine administration records were in good order and completely correctly. Medicines were ordered, stored and returned correctly. The provider's medicine policies and procedures were in place and regular audits were carried out to ensure the system was safe.