- Care home
Madeira Lodge
Report from 6 August 2024 assessment
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
We carried out this comprehensive assessment between 21 August 2024 and 06 September 2024. We looked at how Madeira Lodge assessed and planned for people's care needs, and how they trained and supervised staff to support people according to their needs and preferences. Madeira Lodge is a residential care home providing accommodation for persons who require personal care for up to 48 people. The service provides support to older people, some of who lived with dementia and some of who had mental health needs. At the time of our assessment there were 35 people living at the service. We spoke with 4 people, 11 relatives, 1 visitor and 10 staff during the assessment. We observed care and support in communal areas and we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We reviewed 7 people’s care plans, 3 staff recruitment records as well as general records for the service. These included staff training records, meeting records, policies and procedures and audits. During this comprehensive assessment we identified 4 continuous breaches of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in relation to dignity and respect, person-centred care, safe care and treatment and good governance.
People's experience of this service
People's feedback about the service they received was mixed. Comments included, “Generally speaking it is not a bad place it could be a lot worse”; “It is a lovely place but they need to sort out the staffing” and “I feel very safe here because there are people here to keep an eye on me.” People told us they did not always feel safe. Relatives told us they were kept informed about changes in health or incidents and accidents. The provider had systems and processes in place to manage medicines, these were not fully robust and some improvements were identified. Staff supported people in a clean and well-equipped environment. People were not always treated with dignity and respect. The provider had policies in place and staff had been trained. Safeguarding concerns were reported to the appropriate authorities. Risks to people were not always identified and risk assessments lacked enough detailed information for staff to know how to keep people safe. Care plans were detailed and people's preferences and choices were documented, some care plans were more person-centred than others. Oral care and support with bathing and showering was not always documented in people’s care plans and daily records. There were enough staff deployed to provide support for people. However, some improvements were required. Some staff had not received all the training they needed to support people safely. Staff knew people well. The quality monitoring and audit processes were not always robust as these had not identified issues and concerns identified by inspectors. Since the assessment visit the management team have been reviewing these processes to improve the service and to ensure the management team had a better oversight of the service. Staff were well supported and there was an open culture. People's choice and consent was not always valued. Staff continually consulted people about their wellbeing and wishes, some people’s wishes were not respected.