Archived: Langley House

Updated 27 July 2017

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.

This inspection took place on 22 June 2017 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and the provider did not know we would be visiting. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. The expert by experience had personal experience of caring for someone who used this type of service.

Before we visited the home we checked the information we held about this location and the provider, for example we looked at the inspection history, safeguarding notifications and complaints.

We contacted professionals involved in caring for people who used the service, including commissioners, safeguarding and infection control staff. No concerns were raised by any of these professionals. We also contacted the local Healthwatch and no concerns had been raised with them about the service. Healthwatch is the local consumer champion for health and social care services. They give consumers a voice by collecting their views, concerns and compliments through their engagement work.

During the inspection we spoke with six people who used the service and six relatives. We spoke with the registered manager, a director and an operations manager from Resolve Care Consultancy Ltd, three care staff, the administrator and a domestic.

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of three people who used the service and observed how people were being cared for. We also looked at the personnel files for three members of staff.

We reviewed staff training and recruitment records. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service such as audits, surveys and policies.

We spoke with the registered manager about what was good about their service and any improvements they intended to make.

Updated 27 July 2017

This inspection took place on 22 June 2017 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and the provider did not know we would be visiting. The home had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC 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.

Langley House was last inspected on 9 and 10 April 2015 and was rated Good overall and rated Required Improvement in the area of Effective. We informed the provider that further work was required to ensure the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). During this inspection we found that the provider had ensured improvements were made in this area.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Langley House is run by a charity, Durham Aged Mineworkers` Homes Association (DAMHA) and provides care and accommodation for up to 26 older people, including people living with dementia. Langley House is a purpose-built, single storey care home situated on Sunderland Road in the centre of Horden, County Durham which is on a bus route and close to local amenities. Langley House comprised of 26 bedrooms, all of which were en-suite.

Facilities included a lounge/bar, a smoking lounge, a dining room, communal bathrooms, shower rooms and toilets, a hairdressing room and an enclosed, communal, sensory garden. The general reception was large and spacious with comfortable seated areas.

We saw that entry to the premises was controlled by key-pad entry and all visitors were required to sign in. This meant the provider had appropriate security measures in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service.

People who used the service and their relatives were complimentary about the standard of care at Langley House. We saw staff supporting and helping to maintain people’s independence. People were encouraged to care for themselves where possible. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people using the service.

Training records were up to date and staff received supervisions and appraisals, which meant that staff were properly supported to provide care to people who used the service.

The layout of the building provided adequate space for people with walking aids or wheelchairs to mobilise safely around the home.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met. All the care records we looked at contained evidence of consent.

Medicines were stored safely and securely, and procedures were in place to ensure people received medicines as prescribed.

People had access to food and drink throughout the day and we saw staff supporting people at meal times when required.

Activities were arranged for people who used the service based on their likes and interests and to help meet their social needs. The service had good links with the local community.

All the care records we looked at showed people’s needs were assessed. Care plans and risk assessments were in place when required and daily records were up to date. Care plans were personalised and were reviewed regularly.

We saw staff used a range of assessment tools and kept clear records about how care was to be delivered. People who used the service had access to healthcare services and received ongoing healthcare support.

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place and people who used the service, their relatives and visitors were aware of how to make a complaint.

The provider had a robust quality assurance system in place and gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.