Archived: Pelham Lodge

Updated 30 July 2016

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.

We inspected the service on 21 June 2016. The inspection was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Prior to our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. This included information received and statutory notifications. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We sought feedback from health and social care professionals who have been involved in the service and commissioners who fund the care for some people who use the service. Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the visit we spoke with five people who used the service and the relatives’ of two people to get their views. We spoke with three members of support staff, the care manager, the acting deputy manager and the registered manager. We looked at the care records of five people who used the service, medicines records of four people, staff training records, as well as a range of records relating to the running of the service including audits carried out by the registered manager and registered provider.

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.

Updated 30 July 2016

We inspected the service on 21 June 2016. The inspection was unannounced. Pelham Lodge provides accommodation for up to nine people who have a learning disability. There were six people living at the service on the day of our visit.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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.

Risks in relation to people’s care and support were not always assessed or planned for appropriately. Risks in relation to the external environment were not managed appropriately and the service was not clean and hygienic in all areas.

There were not always sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs. Safe recruitment practices were not always followed.

People were supported by staff who knew how to recognise abuse and how to respond to concerns and there were systems and processes in place to protect people from abuse. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed. People were supported to eat and drink enough and had their healthcare needs met.

People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were not always respected and applications were not always made where it was likely that people were being deprived of their liberty. However, people were involved in making decisions about their care and support and were supported to make day to day decisions.

People’s diverse needs were not planned for. People were not always treated with dignity and their right to privacy was not always respected. People’s communication methods were not consistently recognised or acted upon appropriately by staff.

People were supported by staff who were provided with training and supervision.

People did not always receive consistent support as support plans contained out of date information and some support plans had information missing. Staff did not always have knowledge of people’s preferences. However, people were supported to have a social life and to follow their interests.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. However they were not always effective in identifying areas for improvement.

The management team were open and approachable. People were supported to raise issues, concerns and complaints and felt assured that these would be dealt with appropriately. People were given the opportunity to get involved in giving their views on how the service was run.