Lakelands Lodge

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 whether people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. In the areas we looked at, people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. People were protected from the risk of abuse. People were kept safe with the use of effective recruitment procedures and sufficient staffing numbers. People were supported to take their medicines. The provider had robust health and safety processes to keep people safe.

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.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People's relatives told us they felt safe. People that lived at Lakelands Lodge agreed. One person said, “Oh yes, I am very safe and sound. The staff protect me. I have my room the way I want it and its cleaned every day."

Leaders provided safeguarding training which we could see had high compliancy rates. Staff told us they completed the training and knew what to do if they had any safeguarding concerns.

We observed that staff knew how to support people safely, for example when moving and handling.

There was an up to date safeguarding policy which had appropriate information to guide staff. The provider had good links with the safeguarding teams at the local authority.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People had personal evacuation plans available in the event of a fire. Equipment used was serviced and checked regularly to make sure people were safe. Upkeep of the building was maintained. People told us the home was kept clean and tidy.

Maintenance staff and housekeeping staff said they had the time and resources they needed to maintain the premises properly. Staff were able to raise any concerns about the premises and were confident they would be addressed in a timely manner.

We observed the premises to be clean, tidy and free of hazards. Hoists and wheelchairs were stored safely and were serviced. All corridors were free from obstruction. Windows restrictors were in good working order. Hazardous areas eg, laundry, plant room were secure.

The provider had up to date health and safety assessments including gas safety testing, electrical safety testing and water testing. There was a fire risk assessment in place and the provider was actioning recommendations from the fire service. There was a maintenance manager and system to manage the upkeep of the home, and make sure items were replaced or fixed when necessary.

People spoke highly of the staff although thought numbers could be increased. One person said, "The staff here are just lovely, but there is not always enough. I sometimes have to wait for help. I am in bed so I am not at the risk of falls and when I am moved, staff are there to help." A relative said, "The staff are lovely but they just don't have enough time. They appear to know their jobs."

Staff told us they they had received training to support them to understand and meet people’s needs effectively. Staff said, “I loved the training and found it beneficial, we do both on line and face to face training.” And, “Training has been really helpful. Really informative. It made me more confident in my job.” Staff said although there were enough staff on duty to support people there were times when it could be too busy and they felt rushed.

We saw staff supporting people with compassion and kindness. Staff understood people’s needs and how to interact with them and provide effective care. We saw staff were patient and responsive to people’s requests. People living in the home seemed happy and relaxed with staff.

The provider had a system to arrange for adequate staffing numbers. The provider had recently introduced 'hospitality' staff to support people effectively during mealtimes. The provider arranged training for staff and this had mostly been completed. We looked at 4 recruitment records and found the provider followed safe recruitment processes.

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

People told us they were supported to self-administer their medicines where they were able and wished to do so. Processes for applying and recording creams were in place. However, we found these was not being consistently followed by staff and we found that one person was not having their cream applied as prescribed and for other people records were not accurately completed. A process for ensuring people received time sensitive medicines safely and at the right time was in place. However, we found this was not always followed and for one person doses of paracetamol were given too close together on several occasions in the last month. For some people information to support staff to safely give ‘when required’ medicines was in place and was person centred. However, we found for a number of people this was not person centred and for one person a plan was not in place. The provider took action to address following the inspection.

Staff told us they completed medicines training and had been recently assessed to make sure that they gave medicines safely; training records confirmed this. Managers told us improvements were made following a medicines audit, for example further staff training. After the inspection we received a detailed action plan addressing the shortfalls we had identified. Staff had dedicated time to manage and handle medicines including ordering, receiving and managing medicines stocks.

Comprehensive policies and procedures were in place to support the safe administration of medicines. Medicines were stored securely and safely including controlled drugs. Records of regular medicines were generally well maintained and followed national guidance including recording people’s allergies. Processes were in place for supporting people that needed their medicines to be given covertly, hidden in food or drink. However, for one person paperwork to record if they were given medicines covertly or overtly was not consistently completed.