Archived: Lound Hall

Updated 30 October 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.

This inspection took place on 4 September 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

The provider completed a provider information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give key information about the service for example what the service does well and any improvements they intend to make. Before the inspection we examined previous inspection records and notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law.

Many people using the service were very unwell and were unable to speak with us about their care, so we observed the support they received from staff to help us understand their experiences. We spoke with three people, one relative, four members of staff and the manager. We looked at the care records for seven people, including their care plans and risk assessments. We looked at staff recruitment files, medicine records, minutes of meetings and documents relating to the monitoring of the service.

Updated 30 October 2015

Lound Hall is a care home providing nursing care to a maximum of 43 people. At the time of our visit there were 38 people using the service.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 4 September 2015.

The home had a registered manager in place. 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 requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about the service is run.

People told us they felt safe and secure living at the service and one person said the staff made them feel, “Comfortable,” and, “Secure.” There were systems in place to reduce the risks to people and protect them from avoidable harm.

The service had in place robust recruitment procedures which ensured that staff had the appropriate skills, background and qualifications for the role. People told us they were confident in the skills and experience of staff. There were enough suitably trained and supported staff available to support people during our inspection.

People told us they received their medicines when they needed them. There were robust systems in place to ensure that medicines, including controlled drugs, were stored and administered safely.

Staff told us they felt supported by the manager of the service and the managing director. They said that the training they received provided them with a good understanding of topics such as the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People spoke highly of the staff and told us they were, “Completely comfortable,” raising concerns or issues with them.

The service was complying with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the DoLS. Appropriate DoLS applications had been made where required, and assessments of people’s capacity were completed appropriately.

People were supported to engage in meaningful activity which they enjoyed individually. At the time of inspection the service was recruiting a new staff member to coordinate activities within the service.

People were positive about the care they received from staff. People and their relatives had input into the planning of their care. Staff demonstrated they knew people they cared for well.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and to identify shortfalls or areas for improvement. There was an open culture at the service. People using the service, their relatives and staff were given the opportunity to express their views and these were acted on by the service. There was a complaints procedure in place and people told us they knew how to make a complaint if they weren’t happy.