We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bay Lodge on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Bay Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
The home is located with the small town of Holbeach and is a converted domestic dwelling. There are no signs on the exterior of the building that would indicate it was a residential care home.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Bay Lodge ensured current government guidelines in relation to COVID-19 were being followed by staff and visitors to reduce the risk of infection to people living at the home. This included comprehensive checks for visitors and staff on arrival to the home.
The Registered Manager had a methodical and structured approach to recording individuals COVID-19 vaccination status and test results.
Bay Lodge is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to five people under 65 years of age at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to six people younger adults with learning disabilities and/or autism.
The care home accommodated five people in a detached adapted building and additional accommodation was provided for one person in a purpose built bungalow in the grounds.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were relaxed with staff and showed by their actions they trusted them. A person’s relative said, “We couldn’t have found a better place for them.” Staff encouraged people to become more independent and identified activities to interest and engage them. Some people were regularly attending courses at a local college. 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.
People continued to be safe at the service. Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. They completed risk assessments and actions were identified to keep people safe while not unnecessarily restricting their freedom. Staffing levels were planned to enable people to receive their required levels of support in the service and when in the community. People received their prescribed medicines regularly and medicines were managed safely.
Staff were knowledgeable about people’s care and support needs and received training to maintain their knowledge and skills. Most people had complex needs and staff involved other professionals, to ensure they gained a full understanding of the factors influencing each person and developed an individualised approach to their care. Care plans contained detailed information about each person’s individual support needs and preferences in relation to their care.
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. When people did not have the capacity to make their own decisions, staff maximised their involvement and made decisions in their best interests, in accordance with legislation.
The home continued to be well led. The registered manager provided daily leadership and support. Staff felt able to raise concerns and discuss issues openly. Quality assurance processes were in place and actions were taken to address issues identified in the audits. The provider had a range of systems in place to monitor service performance and quality indicators and there was a commitment to continuous quality improvement.
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 3 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
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.
The service was run by a company that was the registered provider. There was 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. In this report when we speak about both the company and the registered manager we refer to them as being, ‘the registered persons’.
At the last inspection the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
This inspection was announced and was carried out on 13 April 2017. We gave the registered persons a short period of notice. This was because the people who lived in the service had complex needs for care and benefited from knowing in advance that we would be calling.
Care staff knew how to keep people safe from the risk of abuse. Staff helped people to avoid preventable accidents while also enabling them to take reasonable risks. Medicines were managed safely and there were enough care staff on duty. Background checks had been completed before new care staff had been appointed.
Care staff knew how to support people in the right way. People enjoyed their meals and they had been helped to obtain all of the healthcare assistance they needed.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were treated with compassion and respect. Care staff recognised people’s right to privacy and promoted their dignity. Confidential information was kept private.
People had been given all of the care they needed and they had been supported to pursue their hobbies and interests. There was a system for quickly and fairly resolving complaints.
People had been consulted about the development of their home. Quality checks had been regularly completed to ensure that people received safe care. Care staff were supported to speak out if they had any concerns and good team work was promoted. People had benefited from care staff acting upon good practice guidance.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
We inspected Bay Lodge on 2 April 2015. This was an unannounced inspection.
Bay Lodge provides accommodation for up to five people who have a learning disability. There were four people living in the service at the time of our inspection.
There was 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.
The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how a provider applies the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way. This is usually to protect themselves. At the time of our inspection two people were being deprived of their liberty. The remaining people were subject to a level of supervision and control that could have amounted to a deprivation of liberty. The registered persons had sought and/or obtained the necessary authorisations to ensure that all of the care provided in the service was lawful.
Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns so that people were kept safe from harm. People were helped to avoid having accidents and their medicines were safely managed. There were enough staff on duty and background checks had been completed before new staff were appointed.
Staff had been supported to assist people in the right way including helping them to eat and drink enough to stay well. People had received all of the healthcare assistance they needed. Staff had ensured that people’s rights were protected because the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice was followed when decisions were made on their behalf.
People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff recognised people’s right to privacy, respected confidential information and promoted people’s dignity.
People had received all of the care they needed including people who had special communication needs and were at risk of becoming distressed. People had been consulted about the care they wanted to receive and they were supported to celebrate their diversity. Staff had offered people the opportunity to pursue their interests and hobbies. There was a good system for resolving complaints.
People had been consulted about the development of the service and quality checks had also been completed. The service was run in an open and inclusive way and people had benefited from staff being involved in good practice initiatives.
We saw people were asked for their consent before care was provided and where people were unable to make decisions for themselves the provider acted in accordance with the law.
Records showed care was planned to reduce the risk to people, while allowing them to remain independent. Appropriate health care professionals were involved in people's care when needed.
The home was clean and tidy. Systems in the kitchen and laundry reduced the risk of cross infection. People's medication was stored and administered safely.
The provider had recruitment systems to ensure care workers were fit to work with vulnerable people. Where care workers were no longer fit to work with vulnerable people they were referred the appropriate bodies.
The home had forms available for people to record their first impressions of the service. We saw a social worker had commented, 'The staff are very welcoming and exhibited a friendly professional attitude towards their responsibilities. [Our client] seemed very happy in his new home.'
We saw that the home had a calm atmosphere and there were good relationships between staff and people who lived at the service.