This inspection was a scheduled inspection, however we also followed up on concerns we identified at the inspection in January 2014. This inspection was completed by two inspectors. We spoke with three people and three relatives of people who used the service. We also spoke with the regional director, registered manager, deputy manager, three carers and two housekeeping staff. The evidence we collected helped us to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and staff told us.
If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary, please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People we spoke with told us they felt safe. One person we spoke with said: 'Oh yes, the staff are ever so kind'.
The staff we spoke with knew and understood the procedures they needed to follow to ensure people remained safe. Staff were able to tell us the different ways people might experience abuse that could place them at risk. Staff knew what their responsibilities were and what steps to take if they suspected abuse had taken place. We found staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and further training was planned.
The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Prior to this inspection we had received one DoLS application from the provider, however the person had since left Lyndon Croft. Staff were able to describe when an application should be considered and who should be involved in the process. We saw records that showed a number of staff had received training in mental capacity with further training booked for more staff.
The home was clean and tidy with no unpleasant odours apparent. We saw inconsistencies with the cleanliness of the home. We have asked the provider to send us an action plan informing us of how the inconsistencies will be addressed.
People told us if they needed anything repaired or replaced, this had been done with minimal delay. We saw maintenance records that confirmed repairs had been undertaken promptly.
We found equipment was maintained and regularly serviced. We found the provider carried out regular fire checks and ensured people and staff knew what to do in the event of an emergency.
Is the service effective?
People had an individual care plan which explained what their needs were. People and relatives told us they had been involved in the care assessment and their contributions were listened to. Risk assessments were reviewed and identified current risks.
People had access to health care professionals which supported their health care needs.
We found staff had received the necessary training that enabled them to provide suitable and appropriate care for people.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by staff that provided care at people's preferred pace. Staff were kind and attentive and responded appropriately to people's requests. Staff promoted individual choice and supported people who wanted to remain as independent as possible. We found individual wishes were taken into account.
We saw that a number of people did not have free access to their bedrooms. This was because they required a key to open their doors. The keys were carried by staff. Although this did not appear to be distressing to the majority of people, the provider may wish to consider this in light of a new ruling regarding the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Is the service responsive?
People received help and support from other health professionals when required, such as doctors, dentists, occupational therapists and chiropodists.
People were supported to participate in activities inside and outside of the home. At the time of our inspection people participated in music and movement and a cheese and wine tasting event which were led by the care staff.
The service had systems in place to monitor the care provided to people. This included regular reviews with people and relatives. We found the provider held residents meetings to seek the views of people who used the service. We saw actions were taken when improvements had been identified.
People told us that concerns were listened to and acted on. People and relatives told us the staff and managers were very approachable.
Staff said they had a handover at the start of each shift to update them of any changes in people's needs since they were last on duty.
We saw there were systems in place for people to alert staff if they required assistance. Call bells were installed in people's rooms. People we spoke with said staff responded to call bells promptly.
Is the service well led?
The service worked alongside other health care professionals and agencies to make sure people received the care they required. We spoke with relatives who confirmed outside health professionals had provided care and support to their family members.
The service had an effective system in place that assured them of the quality of service they provided. The service completed regular checks and sought the views of people who used the service. The service also gained the views of staff and we found the service listened and acted upon these views.
People's care records and other records were accurate, available and completed.