Burgh Heath Lodge

Updated 24 March 2022

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 18 January 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection.

Updated 24 March 2022

This inspection took place on 10 October 2018 and was unannounced.

Burgh Heath Lodge is a residential care home for up to nine people with mental health needs. At the time of the inspection there were eight people living at the home.

People in residential care homes receive accommodation and personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At our last inspection we rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The provider was a small family owned organisation who displayed a positive and compassionate culture of care. People benefitted from receiving person centred care in a supportive environment.

People were kept safe at Burgh Heath Lodge. There was a consistent staff team that was sufficient to meet the needs and preferences of the people that lived there.

Risks to people were identified and clear guidance was in place to minimise risk, whilst not restricting people’s choices and freedom. Staff understood what action they should take if they suspected abuse, including the agencies that needed to be notified. Each person had a plan which detailed the support they needed to get safely out of the building in an emergency.

People’s medicines were stored and administered safely. External checks were in place to ensure standards were maintained. Staff understood how to protect people from the spread of infections and the home was kept clean.

The provider had carried out appropriate recruitment checks to ensure staff were suitable to support people in the home. Staff received a comprehensive induction and ongoing training so that they could meet the needs of people who lived at the home.

People were supported to maintain good health and they had access to relevant healthcare professionals when they needed them. People benefitted from the way the staff worked with other services to ensure effective care and support. People had a varied and balanced diet to support their nutrition and health.

The home was adapted to meet the needs of the people who lived there. Improvements had been made and were planned to cater for some additional needs as people aged.

People’s consent was sought in line with the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act. Where people's liberty was restricted to keep them safe, the provider had followed the requirements of the Act, and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), to ensure the person's rights were protected.

People were treated compassionately by kind and caring staff. Individual support needs were accommodated by staff in a calm and sensitive way. People’s privacy and independence was promoted at all times. Contact with families and friends was encouraged and enabled to happen.

People received an individualised service. They were given choices and had a say over their day to day care, including any activities and their meals. People’s background and their need for communication and social interaction was understood. They were given opportunities to go on outings and to the shops.

People living at the home benefitted from the relationships the service had formed with local community organisations and with professionals.

The service was well managed. Staff were supported and involved. People felt they were part of a family and they were enabled to share their views. There was good governance in place and record keeping was organised and clear. Standards were maintained through a series of quality assurance checks.

Feedback was welcomed and a complaints policy was in place. Families and professionals spoke highly of the care and support provided.