Falcon Lodge

Updated 5 June 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Service and service type

Falcon Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced; however, we telephoned an hour before attending to ensure there were no risks associated with Coronavirus within the service.

What we did before the inspection

The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

We reviewed notifications received from the service. Notifications are sent by the provider to CQC to tell us about significant events that happen in the service. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with two people who used the service. We spoke with six members of staff including the registered manager, area manager, senior care workers, and care workers.

We reviewed a range of records. This included two people’s care records and multiple medicine records. We looked at three staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We received all information requested from the provider and sought feedback from two relatives by email.

Updated 5 June 2020

About the service

Falcon Lodge is a residential care home providing personal care to five people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to five people who have learning disabilities and/or autism. Accommodation consisted of individual bedrooms with en-suite facilities, a shared lounge, dining room, small lounge and a large, accessible garden.

The service was designed according to the best practice guidance and the principles and values of Registering the Right Support. The service was accommodated in a large, domestic style house in a residential development and was not immediately recognisable as a care home.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The service was safe and people were supported by staff who were well versed in safeguarding. Risks were assessed and wherever possible actions were taken to minimise risks and enable people to lead fulfilling lives. If an accident or incident occurred, this was reviewed and learning taken from it to reduce the likelihood of future occurrences.

The premises were well maintained and all necessary checks and servicing of equipment were completed. Staff were safely recruited and all pre-employment checks were completed prior to them commencing in post. Medicines were safely managed and staff were checked for competency in handling medicines before supporting people.

Staff told us they felt they were well trained and well supported by the registered manager. Regular supervisions took place and the training package for staff both at induction and throughout their employment was extensive.

Assessments and care plans were holistic and well suited to the people living at Falcon Lodge who had autism. Considerations were given to sensory impact on people and the environment as well as identifying and meeting needs. Support was person-centred and, for example, the GP or nurse would attend the service rather than people going to the surgery as this was better suited to them.

People were supported to cook meals or had meals prepared for them, always to their taste and prepared so the whole house could eat together as a family would. People were supported with weight management whether to gain or lose.

The premises were well suited to the people; necessary adaptations were in place, however, the service looked like the other residential properties on the street and had no outward signs of being a specialist provider of care and support.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

There was a homely atmosphere in the service and staff had very positive relationships with people living in the home. We received positive feedback from relatives about the care people received in the service and the service was likened to a family home.

People had needs that changed and the service responded well to this. People had in depth autism profiles and sensory assessments. These would signpost to other assessments and professionals as needed and the provider ensured that all necessary support was sought to enhance people’s life experiences.

Staff were aware of the most effective ways to communicate with people and these were on record in people’s care plans. These were updated as necessary with any new learning.

Activities were person-centred and people accessed the community both individually with one-to-one support and in small groups. Activities were offered in the house for some people and some people’s activity plans showed that their time was well planned to ensure their need to feel secure in their routines was met. Family events such as teas and barbeques were also arranged and relatives enjoyed these as they were able to meet and get to know each other.

There was an easy read complaints procedure available to people, however, relatives told us they had not needed to raise any concerns about the service.

When we inspected, people living in the home averaged 30 years of age and end of life care plans were not relevant to them. The provider had appropriate policies and procedures and would revisit these when more relevant.

We received positive feedback about the registered manager and there was a positive, person-centred culture in the service. There was a strong vision and staff were committed to enabling people to develop their independence and provide them with opportunities to lead happy and fulfilled lives. The registered manager fulfilled their responsibilities as a registered person and ensured that notifications to CQC were submitted and understood their responsibilities under the duty of candour.

The service had achieved accredited status from the National Autistic Society, a significant achievement and the result of hard work by the whole team.

People, relatives and staff were asked for feedback about the service through a quality assurance questionnaire. Action points were taken from the responses and addressed through service improvements. Generally people and their relatives were very happy with the support received at Falcon Lodge.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 16 August 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.