Background to this inspection
Updated
19 August 2015
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 27 July 2015 and 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.
Before our inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. The provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and the improvements they plan to make. We also checked to see what notifications had been received from the provider. Providers are required to inform the CQC of important events which happen within the service.
We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who lived in the home. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) to observe the lunch time meal experience in one of the communal dining areas. SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.
We spoke with 14 people living at the home and nine relatives. We also spoke with the head of care, the quality assurance manager, operations manager, learning and development business partner, two nurses, one student nurse, nine care staff. the chef, two kitchen assistants, three housekeepers, the activities coordinator and the maintenance person. We looked at four people’s care records, four recruitment files and records relating to the management of the service. Following our inspection we contacted one General Practitioner (GP) and one Community Nurse to obtain their views on the homes delivery of care.
Updated
19 August 2015
Court Lodge is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care for up to 43 older people, some of who may be living with dementia. On the day of our inspection 40 people were living at the home.
Accommodation at the home is provided over two floors, which can be accessed using passenger lifts. There is a large garden and patio area’s which provide a secure private leisure area for people living at the home.
The home had 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.
On the day of our inspection the registered manager was on leave. The home was being managed by the head of care who was supported by the provider’s quality assurance manager and operations manager.
Staff understood the needs of the people and care was provided with kindness and compassion. People, relatives and health care professionals told us they were very happy with the care and described the service as excellent.
People told us they felt safe and they enjoyed living at Court Lodge. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse and had a good understanding of what to do if they suspected any form of abuse occurring.
The home had a robust recruitment and selection process to ensure staff were recruited with the right skills, behaviours and experience to support the people who lived at the home.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. At the time of our inspection applications had been submitted by the managing authority (care home) to the supervisory body (local authority) and had yet to be authorised. The head of care understood when an application should be made and how to submit one. They were aware of a recent Supreme Court Judgement which widened and clarified the definition of a deprivation of liberty.
Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions the home was guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests.
People’s care plans and risk assessments were person centred. They were reviewed regularly to make sure they provided up to date and accurate information.
Staff were appropriately trained and skilled to ensure the care delivered to people was safe and effective. They all received a thorough induction when they started work at the home and fully understood their roles and responsibilities.
The registered manager or head of care assessed and monitored the quality of care consistently involving people, relatives and professionals. Care plans were reviewed regularly and people’s support was personalised and tailored to their individual needs.
People and relative’s told us they were asked for feedback and encouraged to voice their opinions about the quality of care provided.
People and relatives knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. The complaints procedure was displayed in the home. It included information about how to contact the ombudsman, if they were not satisfied with how the service responded to any complaint. There was also information about how to contact the Care Quality Commission (CQC).