15 May 2014
During a routine inspection
At the time of this inspection, 45 people were living at Herries Lodge. We observed the care those people received, spoke with seven people who used the service, five representatives, the registered manager and four members of staff, as well as reviewing relevant documentation.
We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask: Is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?
Below is a summary of what we found.
Is the service safe?
There were risk assessments in place where required for people using the service in relation to their support and care provision. People were not put at unnecessary risk, but had choice and remained in control of their own decisions where they had the capacity to make those decisions. This meant that people’s independence was promoted and they were not restricted from engaging in and accessing the wider community.
Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This meant risks to people were reviewed and monitored to minimise any further risks and help the service to continually improve.
The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Where necessary, applications had been submitted to authorise that any restrictions were in the best interests of the person. This meant that appropriate safeguards were in place to protect people.
People were cared for in a clean environment and protected from the risk of infection because staff were provided with appropriate training and guidelines which were followed.
People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the systems and processes in place to manage medicines were effective in practice.
People’s personal records were accurate and kept safe and confidential.
Is the service effective?
People’s health and care needs were assessed with them and people and/or their representative were involved in their care plan. The support people received promoted a good quality of life for people using the service.
During the inspection, the home was busy with activities taking place both in and outside the home to stimulate people and enhance their wellbeing. This included people gardening, singing along to a DVD, watching a film, having their nails done by staff, folding laundry, dominoes and sitting with staff having a ‘natter’ talking about past experiences of holidays and marriage. There was a good atmosphere with the majority of people stimulated by the activities taking place and good humour, banter and laughter taking place between people who used the service, visitors and staff.
Is the service caring?
We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. They spoke with people in a courteous and respectful manner during our visit. This demonstrated positive relationships had developed between people who used the service, their representatives and staff. We heard staff treat people with kindness and compassion when providing their day to day care and responding in a caring way to people’s needs. Our observations of when staff spoke with people were that staff had a clear knowledge of people’s individual likes and preferences.
Is the service responsive?
Services were organised so that they met people’s needs. People completed a range of activities in and outside the service and maintained relationships with family members. Staff responded promptly to any changes in people’s needs and care plans were updated accordingly.
People and relatives told us they felt staff met their needs and provided suitable care in line with their requirements. Comments from people and their representatives included, “my mother is a resident. She has a history of falls and perhaps does take more watching than some of the more agile residents. I have found the level of care exceptional. The staff are so attentive and considerate with her needs” and “I was very apprehensive about my father going in to care but staff were very sensitive to his need and concerns and he settled in quickly”.
Is the service well-led?
The registered manager detailed in this report is not accurate. We have asked the staff member who is currently managing the home to submit information about de-registering the manager listed. The manager currently managing the home has submitted their application to be registered by CQC and this is currently being assessed.
The leadership, management and governance of the organisation was focused on the delivery of person-centred care. The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.
The service encouraged an open and transparent culture, promoting communication with people, staff and other stakeholders.
Staff felt supported by the manager and felt they were able to raise any concerns with her.
Discussions with staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities.
Discussions on best practice, improved ways of working and incident reviews were common throughout formal team meetings and informal discussions.
The service had a quality assurance system in place and records seen by us showed that identified actions were addressed within identified timescales.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.