Archived: Langdale Residential Home

Updated 9 September 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.

This inspection took place on 19 and 20 July 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by two inspectors and a specialist nursing advisor.

Before our inspection, we reviewed the Provider Information return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed information we held about the service and information we had received about the service from people who contacted us. We contacted the local authority that had funding responsibility for some of the people who used the service and the local Healthwatch. Healthwatch are an organisation who collects important information about people’s views and experiences of care.

We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how the service was managed. This included five people’s plans of care and associated documents including risk assessments. We looked at four staff files including their recruitment and training records. We also looked at documentation about the service that was given to staff and people using the service and policies and procedures that the provider had in place. We observed how staff communicated with people who used the service and how they supported them throughout the day. 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. We spoke with the registered manager, the manager, the deputy manager, a senior care worker, two care workers, the activities manager, and the cook.

We spoke with four people who used the service and one relative who was visiting the service. This was to gather their views of the service being provided.

Updated 9 September 2016

This was a comprehensive inspection that took place on 19 and 20 July 2016. The first day of the inspection was unannounced.

Langdale Residential Home provides both care and nursing for up to 31 people who are aged over 65 and who are living with Dementia or who have a physical disability. The home is located on two floors. Each person had their own bedroom. The home had a communal lounge, kitchen and dining room where people could spend time together. At the time of inspection there were 31 people using the service.

The service 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.

People and staff felt the service was well managed. The service was led by a registered manager who understood most of their responsibilities under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. We found that not all statutory notifications had been submitted to the Care Quality Commission.

People were protected from the risk of harm at the service because staff had undertaken training to recognise and respond to safeguarding concerns. They had a good understanding about what safeguarding meant and how to report any concerns.

There were effective systems in place to manage risks associated with people's care and this helped staff to know how to support people safely. Where people displayed behaviour that may cause harm to themselves or others guidance was available to staff to help them to manage such situations in a consistent and positive way.

The building was well maintained and kept in a safe condition. Evacuation plans had been written for each person, to help support them safely in the event of an emergency.

People’s medicines were handled safely and were given to them in accordance with their prescriptions. People’s GPs and other healthcare professionals were contacted for advice whenever necessary. People had access to healthcare service when required.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. People felt that they had to wait for support at times. Staff had been checked for their suitability before starting work to make sure people were supported by staff with the right skills and attributes. Staff received appropriate support through induction and supervision. There was an on-going training programme to provide and update staff on safe ways of working.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and guidance from health professionals in relation to eating and drinking was followed. We saw that people were able to choose their meals.

People were supported to make their own decisions. Staff and managers had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found that DoLS applications and appropriate assessments of capacity had been made. Staff told us that they sought people’s consent before delivering their support.

People or their representatives had contributed to the planning and review of their support.

People received support from staff who showed kindness and compassion. They told us that staff treated them with respect.

People received care and support that was responsive to their needs and preferences. Care plans provided detailed information about people so staff knew what people liked and what they enjoyed. People were encouraged to maintain and develop their independence. They took part in some activities that they enjoyed although people felt that the activities were limited. People were involved in developing their support plans.

Systems were in place which assessed and monitored the quality of the service. This included obtaining feedback from people who used the service and their relatives although people did not remember being asked for this.