Archived: Lodge Care Home

Updated 7 July 2017

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 the 25 and 30 May 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors on the first day and one inspector on the second day.

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. We reviewed previous reports and notifications that are held on the CQC database. Notifications are important events that the service has to let the CQC know about by law. We also reviewed safeguarding alerts and information received from a local authority.

During the inspection 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.

During our inspection we spoke with seven people, three relatives, the manager, deputy manager, five care staff, the cook and activities person. We reviewed seven care files, three staff recruitment files and their support records, audits and policies held at the service.

.

Updated 7 July 2017

The inspection took place on the 25 and 30 May 2017 and was unannounced.

The Lodge Care Home is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require personal care. It can provide accommodation for up to 35 people some of whom maybe living with dementia. On the days of our inspection 25 people were using the service.

At our last inspection the service was given a Requires Improvement rating. At this inspection we saw that improvements had been made and the service was rated as Good. The service did not currently have a registered manager. The service was working to address this in due course.

The service was safe. Staff were deployed appropriately to meet people’s needs. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. People’s needs were met by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. Medication was dispensed by staff who had received training to do so.

The service was effective. People were cared for and supported by staff who had received training to support people to meet their needs. People were safeguarded from the potential of harm and their freedoms protected. Staff were provided with training in Safeguarding Adults from Abuse, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Nutritional needs were supported and people had access to healthcare when required.

The service was caring. Staff were attentive to people's needs. Staff were able to demonstrate that they knew people well. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

The service was responsive. People were provided with the opportunity to participate in activities which interested them at the service. These activities were diverse in meeting people’s social needs. People knew how to make a complaint should they need to.

The service was well-led. There is an interim manager in post until a new registered manager is recruited. The manager had quality monitoring processes in place to monitor and drive improvements at the service. The manager had a number of ways of gathering people’s views including talking with people, staff, and relatives.