Archived: Loxley Hall

As part of this inspection we spoke with three people using the service, three relatives, three members of staff, the registered manager and the service manager. We also spoke with the general practitioner (G.P.) who cares for all of the people using the service. We reviewed records relating to the safety and of the premises and management of the home which included care plans for four people, staff training records, safety inspections and quality audits.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and other people told us, what we observed and the records that we looked at.

Is the service safe?

The service was safe. We saw that a risk assessment had taken place before people had gone to live at the home and was followed by a comprehensive risk assessment after people have lived at the home for about a week. These included personal health and activities of everyday living assessments. The home was clean and staff understood how to prevent and control infection. Staff understood how to prevent and detect abuse and received regular update training. The premises were appropriate and safe: regular maintenance and safety inspections had taken place and recommendations or issues had been addressed promptly. CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place.

Is the service effective?

The service was effective. People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt that all their needs had been met. A relative said they were, 'Very happy with the level of care.' It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that they understood people's care and support needs and that they knew them well. Some people's mobility had improved since arriving at the home and others had pressure ulcers on arrival which had healed. Care plans reflected assessed risks, were reviewed and updated appropriately. Relatives and people using the service that we spoke with said they would recommend the home to other people. Staff had received enough training to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring. A person using the service described the staff as, 'caring and very friendly,' and said that they enjoyed having a laugh with them. A relative told us they were, 'amazed how quickly the staff get to know people.' They said that carers all seemed very nice and that they were caring. Another relative said that the staff knew them, had time to talk with them and were always able to answer questions about the person using the service. We spoke with staff who knew people's needs and we observed them interact with different people in a kind and caring way, using humour when appropriate.

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive to the changing needs of people using the service and to comments and suggestions. We saw that assessments of people's needs resulted in care plans that staff read. The care plans helped staff to know the needs and care that individual people required. Care plans were changed if people's needs changed. A person told us that staff were responsive to their needs and requests. A relative said that once the staff got to know the person using the service they, 'come to you and ask, do you think he would like (different ideas)' We saw that comments and suggestions made by people during regular meetings had been acted on.

Is the service well led?

The service was well led by a registered manager. People said the manager was, 'very good.' Staff said the manager was, 'very supportive and caring' and that they didn't hesitate to tell them when improvements were needed. The service had a senior nurse who we did not meet but who was described as, 'excellent and very experienced and supportive.' The service had a system in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service. Action plans had been made when necessary, following audits to improve the quality of the service. These had been implemented in an appropriate timescale.

The detailed evidence supporting our summary please can be read in our full report.

We spoke with the family of one resident who said that the staff were very friendly and they felt they would be happy to approach them if they had any concerns.

We saw that care plans were reviewed monthly and daily records we viewed confirmed that staff provided people with care and support as described in their care plan.

When we visited we had the opportunity to observe the support that was being given to people living at the service while in the lounge and dining area. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care and support to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk to us. We saw many examples of good communication and patience by care staff, who interacted with people in a positive manner. Staff were friendly and respectful to the people they were supporting. We heard staff speaking quietly and politely to people living at Loxley Hall and in an unhurried manner. Staff were heard supporting people with their mobility and observed reassuring people while being manoeuvred with the aid of a hoist.