Archived: Conifer Lodge

Updated 24 March 2017

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 9 and 10 February 2017, was unannounced and was undertaken by an inspection manager and one inspector.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at this and other information we hold about the service, which included notifications the provider sent to us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law.

Prior to the inspection we spoke with the local authorities who commission people’s care, including social workers. We also received information from health care professionals who supported people. We used this information in planning the inspection.

We spoke with five people on the first day of our inspection and two relatives by telephone on the second day. We also spoke with the registered manager, two nursing staff, one senior support worker, two care support workers and a visiting social worker.

We observed how people were cared for.

We looked at three people’s care records, medicines administration records and records in relation to the management of staff and the service. The records included staff supervision planning, training planning as well as maintenance records for utility supplies, equipment and food hygiene standards.

Updated 24 March 2017

Conifer Lodge is registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for up to 15 people. At the time of our inspection there were 12 people living at the service. The service is a two storey premises located close to the town of Wisbech. The service is based in a rural location with large garden areas where people can spend time doing gardening, sports and other recreational activities.

This unannounced comprehensive inspection was undertaken by an inspection manager and one inspector and took place on 9 and 10 February 2017.

At the previous inspection in January 2015 the service was rated as ‘Good’.

A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection and had been registered since December 2015. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Staff had been trained on how to keep people safe and they knew who they could report any incidents of harm to. Appropriate information was provided in different formats to enable people to report any potential incidents of harm. Accidents and incidents were identified and prompt action was taken to, as far as possible, prevent the potential for any recurrence.

Comprehensive and detailed risk assessments were in place and these helped staff support people in the safest practicable way.

A sufficient number of appropriately recruited and suitably skilled staff were in post to safely meet people’s assessed needs. Medicines were managed and administered safely by staff whose competency had been assessed.

Staff supported people to eat a healthy balanced diet and sought the necessary health care interventions when required. Staff adhered to people’s health action plans.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA] and to report on what we find. The provider was aware of what they were required to do should any person lack mental capacity. Appropriate authorisations were in place to lawfully deprive people of their liberty. Staff understood and implemented the MCA code of practice. People’s rights and best interests were fully supported.

People were given the privacy they needed by staff who demonstrated compassion towards them. Staff provided people’s care with dignity, sincerity and in consideration of the way each person wanted to be cared for.

People were provided with various ways they could be involved with their care such as with pictorial guidance, staff, relative or legal representative support. These various ways were used to identify, determine and plan the review of each person’s care.

The service was flexible and responsive to people’s individual needs and preferences, finding creative ways that enabled people to live as full a life as possible. Staff used new and different ways to help people achieve their ambitions no matter how high each person’s aspirations were. People lived busy social lives and they took part in a wide range of interests, education and pastimes which were innovative and met people’s individual needs.

People’s ideas, suggestions, comments and concerns were listened to and effectively acted upon. This was by staff who were able to suggest additional ideas that the people themselves might not have considered. As a result of this people felt empowered, listened to and valued. The health care professional and person-centred care support that people received helped them achieve exceptional results with their abilities and independent living skills.

The registered manager and staff enabled people to take a key role in the local community and they were actively involved in building further links. Engagement in activities and support networks outside the service was seen as a natural part of people’s lives. On-going improvement is seen as essential. The service strived to be known as outstanding and innovative in providing person centred care based on best practice.

The registered manager was supported by a deputy manager, nursing staff, senior support workers and care support workers. Staff had the support mechanisms in place that they needed to fulfil their role effectively.

People, their relatives and staff were completely involved and enabled to make suggestions to improve how the service was run. Effective quality monitoring and assurance processes were in place in driving sustained improvements in the service.