Archived: Lakeside House

Updated 10 October 2020

The inspection

This was a targeted inspection to check on a specific concern we had about assessing risk, safety monitoring and management.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

Lakeside House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 48 hours' notice of the inspection to ensure we could manage the risks related to COVID19.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection

Due to COVID19 guidelines around inspecting in a campus setting we did not carry out a site visit to the service. We requested the documentation we required be provided for us at a safe location provided by the service. We reviewed four people’s care plans relating to specific risks. We spoke with the registered manager, lead manager, area manager and quality manager.

After the inspection

We spoke with three staff and the registered manager via video calls.

Updated 10 October 2020

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 19 October 2017.

Lakeside House provides accommodation for five people with autism and complex needs who ¿require personal care. Four people live in the main part of the home; one person lives in a self-¿contained flat. ¿

Lakeside House is part of a complex owned by the National Autistic Society, called Somerset Court. Within the complex there are other care homes and a day services facility which people can use.

The last inspection of this service was carried out in September 2016. At that inspection the service was rated Requires Improvement. We found four breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) ¿Regulations 2014. This was because people’s legal rights in relation to decision making were not ¿always upheld, people were not provided with a consistently homely and well maintained ¿environment, staff had not been supervised regularly and the quality assurance processes in ¿place to monitor care and safety and plan on-going improvements were not fully effective.

Following the inspection in September 2016 the provider sent us an action plan to state what changes they would make to ensure they were compliant with the regulations. At this inspection we found all the required improvements had been made and the home was fully compliant with regulation.

¿

Since the last inspection a new registered manager had been appointed. 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. Staff and relatives spoke highly of the current management at the home.

People lived in a home which was well led and there was a commitment to making on-going improvements to the service. Positive comments were received about the changes that had been made during the past year. One member of staff said, “I think the main thing is consistency. We all know what is expected and the people who live here are more settled because of it.” A relative told us “The management are definitely on the ball now.”

People were safe at the home and appeared relaxed and comfortable with the staff who supported them. There were adequate numbers of staff to keep people safe and to meet their needs. There were systems in place to make sure people received their medicines safely. One relative told us, “I have every confidence they are safe.”

People received effective care because staff were well supported and trained. Staff knew how to support people when they did not have the mental capacity to make a decision for themselves. Staff used pictures and symbols to promote choice for people. They also used easy read posters and information to make sure people had access to information about abuse and making a complaint.

Improvements to the environment meant people lived in a comfortable home which promoted their independence. People were involved in decisions about the décor and furnishings within the house.

People were supported by kind and caring staff who they had built trusting relationships with. When people returned to the house from their activities they looked genuinely happy to see staff and one person gave a number of staff a hug as a greeting. Staff supported people to keep in touch with people who were important to them.

People had their needs assessed and reviewed to make sure care provided met their up to date needs. People were able to set goals for the things they would like to achieve and staff helped people to achieve their goals.

People had access to a wide range of activities according to their abilities and interests. Some activities were provided on site and people also accessed facilities in the local community. One relative said, “There is so much going on. Lots of trips out and they regularly go down to the local pub.”