We carried out a review of the data available to us about Camden Lodge Residential Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Camden Lodge Residential Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Camden Lodge Residential Care Home is a privately-owned care home for older people in Enfield. The home
is registered to accommodate 24 older people, most of whom are living with dementia. On the day of our
inspection there were 24 people residing at the home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People had access to healthcare services and were involved in decisions about their care. Partnerships with other agencies and health professionals enabled effective outcomes for people.
People's care was planned and risks to their safety and wellbeing were assessed. The service reviewed these plans regularly, involving people in these reviews and asking for their opinions.
Staff had completed safeguarding training and understood their role in identifying and reporting any concerns of potential abuse or poor practice. Medicines were managed safely.
People and staff praised the managers of the service and agreed that they were approachable, knowledgeable, fair and did their job well. The staff team worked well together and supported the registered manager.
The staff team was committed to providing a high-quality service. They had undertaken training so that they were skilled and knowledgeable to effectively meet people’s needs. Staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns.
People were given choices about the way in which they were cared for. Staff listened to them and knew their needs well.
Care plans contained information about each person’s individual support needs and preferences in relation to their care and we found evidence of good outcomes for people.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff worked at the service.
The managers of the service actively sought the views of people and their relatives about the running of the service, and they dealt promptly with any concerns that people raised.
The provider had systems in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided. There was a positive culture throughout the service. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and felt valued.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
At the last inspection we rated this service Good. The report was published on 19 November 2019
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe and Well Led. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
About the service
Camden Lodge Residential Care Home is a privately-owned care home for older people in Enfield. The home is registered to accommodate 24 older people, most of whom are living with dementia. On the day of our inspection there were 24 people residing at the home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Systems and processes were in place to keep people safe and risks associated with people's care needs had been assessed. There were enough staff to meet people's needs and recruitment processes and procedures were robust. Medicines were managed safely. The service was clean, and there were appropriate
procedures to ensure any infection control risks were minimised.
Staff received training and supervision for them to perform their role. People's nutrition and health were supported and promoted. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and
systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff knew people well and care plans were detailed and provided staff with clear guidance on how to meet people's needs. Staff respected people privacy and dignity and encouraged people to remain independent. People and relatives could express their views about the running of the home.
.
People received personalised care and support which met their needs, reflected their preferences. People benefited from a variety of activities, events and trips out that were available to reduce social isolation, give meaning and purpose and enhance their wellbeing.
The service was well led. People, staff and relatives spoke extremely positively about the managers of the service. There was a positive culture throughout the service which focused on providing care that was personalised. The management team used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. They were aware of their regulatory responsibilities associated with their role.
More information is in the full report.
Rating at last inspection
At the last inspection we rated this service Good. The report was published on 19 April 2017.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor this service.
Camden Lodge Residential Care Home is a privately owned care home for older people in Enfield. The home is registered to accommodate 24 older people, most of whom are living with dementia. On the day of our inspection there were 23 people residing at the home.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People told us they felt safe at the home and risks to people’s safety and been identified, acted on and, where possible, were being reviewed with the person.
Staff knew the signs to look out for that may indicate someone was being abused and they knew who to contact if they thought anyone was being abused.
There were systems in place to ensure medicines were handled and stored securely and administered to people safely and appropriately.
Staff were positive about how the service was run and the leadership by the registered manager.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People told us they liked the food and staff knew about any special diets people required either as a result of a clinical need, personal preference or cultural requirement.
People had regular access to healthcare professionals such as doctors, dentists, chiropodists and opticians.
Staff understood that people’s diversity was important and something that needed to be upheld and valued.
Staff demonstrated a good understanding of peoples’ likes, dislikes, needs and preferences.
People told us that the management and staff listened to them and acted on their suggestions and wishes.
People told us they were happy to raise any concerns they had with any of the staff and management of the home.
People we spoke with confirmed that they were asked about the quality of the service and had made comments about this.
Systems were in place to monitor and check the quality of care provided. People told us the service took their views into account in order to improve.
This inspection took place on 04 December 2015 and was unannounced. When we last visited the home on 09 September 2014 we found the service was not meeting all the regulations we looked at. We found that people were not always protected from the risk of from unlawful or excessive control as the provider had not made suitable arrangements to address this by assessing people’s capacity to consent to care and having guidance on the when restraint could be used. The provider sent us an action plan telling us how they would address this.
Camden Lodge is a residential care home for up to 24 elderly people, some of whom may also have dementia.
The home does not have a registered manager. 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 responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. An acting manager is currently in post.
We found a number of breaches of regulations at this inspection. Medicines were not being managed safely and this was putting people at risk. People were not supported effectively as staff did not have all the necessary skills and knowledge to meet their needs. The provider did not have effective systems to monitor the quality of care and support people received.
One area for improvement was also identified. People were not consistently supported to engage in meaningful activities.
Staff understood people’s rights to make choices about their care and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards. Enough staff were available to meet their needs.
People were kept safe from the risk of abuse. Risks to people were identified and staff took action to reduce those risks. People were provided with a choice of food.
There were systems in place to ensure that people consistently received their medicines safely, and as prescribed.
Care was planned and delivered in ways that enhanced people’s safety and welfare according to their needs and preferences. Staff understood people’s preferences, likes and dislikes regarding their care and support needs.
People were treated with dignity and respect. There was an accessible complaints policy which the registered manager followed when complaints were made to ensure they were investigated and responded to appropriately. People and their relatives felt confident to express any concerns, so these could be addressed.
People using the service, relatives and staff said the acting manager was approachable and supportive.
At this inspection there were breaches of regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing and good governance. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
As part of this inspection we spoke with nine people who used the service and eight staff including four care assistants, the cook, the manager, the provider's area manager and the handyman. We also spoke with the doctor and district nurse who were visiting people on the day of our inspection. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed during the visit and what we saw in the records we looked at.
Is the service safe?
The training records we looked at showed people were cared for by appropriately skilled staff. Staff knew how to care for people safely. Risks assessments were in place which provided information for staff about how to manage these. Staff worked in partnership with other service providers to ensure people's physical and medical needs were met.
It was not clear from the information we reviewed how people or their representatives had been involved in drawing up care plans. The need for some people to have an advocate was not properly considered. Arrangements had not been put in place to care for people under the Mental Capacity Act in relation to deprivation of liberty safeguards. This was required for some people, where their ability to make informed decisions was limited by their mental health.
Is the service effective?
People's needs had been assessed and care plans drawn up on the basis of these needs. The service ensured people were well fed, clean and safe and that their medical needs were attended to. People were not encouraged or supported to play an active role in the provision of their care and their ability to be independent was not promoted or encouraged.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw care workers and other support staff were respectful and courteous in their communication with people and sought to be helpful and supportive. One person told us 'the manager is very helpful.'
Is the service responsive?
Whilst the service was responsive to expressed views of people using the service, views about the quality of service lacked independence. The views of wider stakeholders were not proactively sought. Many people seemed unaware of the options and choices available to them.
Is the service well lead?
The registered manager had left the service and the CQC had been informed of this. The new manager who had taken up post in May was keen to introduce improvements to the home and the systems for monitoring the quality of the service. They had yet to apply for registration as required by the CQC.
Care planning and assessment processes were person centred. Specialist involvement had been sought where required which meant that specific care needs could be met effectively. Risk assessments were in place to help alleviate and to support staff to respond to risks which could affect people's health and welfare. A range of activities were available to people and were suited to the needs of people living in the home.
There were sufficient staffing levels on the day of the inspection and the provider had adequate systems in place to assess staffing requirements. There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. People living at the home were asked for their views about the service. The provider used this information to make improvements so that the home provided the care and support that people needed.
However, we found that medicines were not always managed safely. We identified some concerns with the recording, administration and storage of medications.
There were systems in place to ensure that people were protected from abuse and to ensure they received the care they needed. People told us they felt safe at the home and were happy with the environment.
The meal menu's and the individual record of what people chose to eat showed that people were treated as individuals.
We saw that people's rooms had been personalised and many had brought their own personal items.
People spoken with did not have knowledge of their care plan. A person said staff supported them when needed.
People said they felt safe in the home.
We saw the hallways were all decorated in the same colours and there were no sign
posts to help people with dementia orientate themselves. All doors were the same with only door numbers to distinguish people's rooms. This made it difficult for people with dementia to identify their bedroom doors or know were the bathrooms and toilets were.
People said, staff could meet their needs. A person said, 'Staff are nice.'
We asked people using the service whether they were satisfied with the service provided. People said they were happy at the home. They were satisfied with the food. A person had commented on the surveys returned that the manager was first class.