The inspection visit took place on 20 March 2015. This was an unannounced inspection which meant that the staff and provider did not know that we would be visiting.
We last inspected the service on 10 October 2013 and found the service was not in breach of any regulations at that time.
Saxon Lodge is a purpose built home which provides accommodation for up to eight people with complex needs such as learning and physical disabilities. The home is within walking distance of Norton town centre with a number of local facilities close by. Accommodation is provided over two floors. Bedrooms have an en-suite toilet, wash basin and a shower and appropriate ceiling hoists in place. On the ground floor there is a communal lounge, large kitchen/dining room, an activities lounge and space for arts and crafts. The home is close to shops, pubs and public transport.
There is a registered manager in post. 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.
One person told us they felt safe at Saxon Lodge and we observed the care and support other people received who could not communicate directly with us. We discussed safeguarding with staff and all were knowledgeable about the procedures to follow if they suspected abuse. Staff were clear that their role was to protect people and knew how to report abuse including the actions to take to raise this with external agencies.
There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager had the appropriate knowledge to know how to apply the MCA and when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant people were safeguarded.
Staff had received a range of training, which covered mandatory courses such as fire safety, infection control, food hygiene as well as condition specific training such as working with people with epilepsy and providing person centred support. We found that the staff had the skills and knowledge to provide support to the people who lived at the home. People and the staff we spoke with told us that there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. We saw that five staff routinely provided support to 8 people.
There was a regular programme of staff supervision in place and records of these were detailed and showed the home worked with staff to identify their personal and professional development. We also saw a regular programme of staff meetings where issues were shared and raised.
The service encouraged people to lead a safe and active lifestyle. People were supported to be involved in the local community as much as possible. People were supported to access facilities such as the local G.P, shops and leisure facilities as well as to use the facilities in the service such as the kitchen for cooking meals.
There was a system in place for dealing with people’s concerns and complaints. One person told us they would talk to staff if they were unhappy with anything. The staff we spoke with all told us they could recognise if people they supported weren’t well or were unhappy and what measures they would take to address any concerns. Two relatives also told us they would know if their relative wasn’t happy and that they could discuss anything with the registered manager and deputy manager.
People were encouraged to help prepare food with staff support if they wished and on the day of our visit some people had helped prepare a corned beef pie. We saw people had nutritional assessments in place and people with specific dietary needs were supported. Specialist advice was sought quickly where necessary not only for nutritional support but any healthcare related concerns.
We saw that detailed assessments were completed, which identified people’s health and support needs as well as any risks to people who used the service and others. These assessments were used to create care plans which were detailed and person centred. Care plans were regularly reviewed and involved the person as far as possible.
We reviewed the systems for the management of medicines and found that people received their medicines safely and there were clear guidelines in place for staff to follow.
We found that the building was very clean and well-maintained. Appropriate checks of the building and maintenance systems were undertaken to ensure health and safety. We found that all relevant infection control procedures were followed by the staff at the home and there was plenty of personal protective equipment to reduce the risk of cross infection. We saw that audits of infection control practices were completed.
We saw that the manager utilised a range of quality audits and used them to critically review the service. They also sought the views of people using the service and their families on a regular basis and used any information to improve the service provided. This had led to the systems being effective and the service being well-led.
Accidents and incidents were also reviewed by the registered manager and appropriate measures taken to reduce the risk of any further re-occurrence.
We saw that staff members were recruited safely using appropriate identity checks and people were involved in the recruitment process.
The inspection visit took place on 20 March 2015. This was an unannounced inspection which meant that the staff and provider did not know that we would be visiting.
We last inspected the service on 10 October 2013 and found the service was not in breach of any regulations at that time.
Saxon Lodge is a purpose built home which provides accommodation for up to eight people with complex needs such as learning and physical disabilities. The home is within walking distance of Norton town centre with a number of local facilities close by. Accommodation is provided over two floors. Bedrooms have an en-suite toilet, wash basin and a shower and appropriate ceiling hoists in place. On the ground floor there is a communal lounge, large kitchen/dining room, an activities lounge and space for arts and crafts. The home is close to shops, pubs and public transport.
There is a registered manager in post. 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.
One person told us they felt safe at Saxon Lodge and we observed the care and support other people received who could not communicate directly with us. We discussed safeguarding with staff and all were knowledgeable about the procedures to follow if they suspected abuse. Staff were clear that their role was to protect people and knew how to report abuse including the actions to take to raise this with external agencies.
There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager had the appropriate knowledge to know how to apply the MCA and when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant people were safeguarded.
Staff had received a range of training, which covered mandatory courses such as fire safety, infection control, food hygiene as well as condition specific training such as working with people with epilepsy and providing person centred support. We found that the staff had the skills and knowledge to provide support to the people who lived at the home. People and the staff we spoke with told us that there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. We saw that five staff routinely provided support to 8 people.
There was a regular programme of staff supervision in place and records of these were detailed and showed the home worked with staff to identify their personal and professional development. We also saw a regular programme of staff meetings where issues were shared and raised.
The service encouraged people to lead a safe and active lifestyle. People were supported to be involved in the local community as much as possible. People were supported to access facilities such as the local G.P, shops and leisure facilities as well as to use the facilities in the service such as the kitchen for cooking meals.
There was a system in place for dealing with people’s concerns and complaints. One person told us they would talk to staff if they were unhappy with anything. The staff we spoke with all told us they could recognise if people they supported weren’t well or were unhappy and what measures they would take to address any concerns. Two relatives also told us they would know if their relative wasn’t happy and that they could discuss anything with the registered manager and deputy manager.
People were encouraged to help prepare food with staff support if they wished and on the day of our visit some people had helped prepare a corned beef pie. We saw people had nutritional assessments in place and people with specific dietary needs were supported. Specialist advice was sought quickly where necessary not only for nutritional support but any healthcare related concerns.
We saw that detailed assessments were completed, which identified people’s health and support needs as well as any risks to people who used the service and others. These assessments were used to create care plans which were detailed and person centred. Care plans were regularly reviewed and involved the person as far as possible.
We reviewed the systems for the management of medicines and found that people received their medicines safely and there were clear guidelines in place for staff to follow.
We found that the building was very clean and well-maintained. Appropriate checks of the building and maintenance systems were undertaken to ensure health and safety. We found that all relevant infection control procedures were followed by the staff at the home and there was plenty of personal protective equipment to reduce the risk of cross infection. We saw that audits of infection control practices were completed.
We saw that the manager utilised a range of quality audits and used them to critically review the service. They also sought the views of people using the service and their families on a regular basis and used any information to improve the service provided. This had led to the systems being effective and the service being well-led.
Accidents and incidents were also reviewed by the registered manager and appropriate measures taken to reduce the risk of any further re-occurrence.
We saw that staff members were recruited safely using appropriate identity checks and people were involved in the recruitment process.