Archived: Ladyfield House

Updated 11 September 2018

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 registered 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.

The inspection took place on 14 August 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

Prior to the inspection visit we gathered information from a number of sources. We also looked at the information received about the service from notifications sent to the Care Quality Commission by the registered manager. We ask the registered provider to submit 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 also spoke with other professionals supporting people at the service, to gain further information about the service.

We spoke with nine people who used the service and three relatives of people living at the home. We spent time observing staff interacting with people.

We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We spoke with staff including care workers, senior care workers, catering staff, activity co-ordinators, the registered manager, and the regional manager. We looked at documentation relating to people who used the service, staff and the management of the service. We looked at people's care and support records, including the plans of their care. We saw the systems used to manage people's medication, including the storage and records kept. We also looked at the quality assurance systems to check if they were robust and identified areas for improvement.

Updated 11 September 2018

The inspection took place on 14 August 2018 and was unannounced. The last comprehensive inspection took place in August 2017, when we identified four breaches of Regulation. People did not always receive care and treatment which was person-centred and met their needs. The registered provider was not always doing all that was reasonably practicable to mitigate risks associated with people’s care and treatment. Systems and processes in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service, were not effective and needed embedding into practice. There were insufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe and to meet their needs. The service was rated as Requires Improvement.

Following the last inspection, we asked the registered provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do to improve the key questions safe and well led, to at least Good.

At this inspection we checked if improvements had been made. We found that the registered provider had addressed all the concerns raised at our last inspection and the rating of the service improved to Good. You can read the report from our last inspections, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Ladyfield House’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Ladyfield House 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.

Ladyfield House provides accommodation for up to 50 people. The home consists of two separate units; Salvin and Hewitt. The service provides accommodation for people who require personal care, including people living with dementia. The home is located in the Kiveton Park area of Rotherham. At the time of our inspection there were 35 people using the service. This included people who were staying at the home for a short period of respite care.

At the time of our inspection the service had 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.’

People were safeguarded against the risk of abuse. Staff confirmed they had received training in the subject and knew what action to take if they suspected abuse.

Risks associated with people care were identified and managed appropriately. Risk assessments were in place to guide staff in ensuring risks were minimised.

We observed staff interacting with people and found there were enough staff available to meet people needs. However, whilst most people we spoke with felt there were enough staff available, a minority of people told us there were not enough staff at busy times. Staff were recruited in a safe way, which ensured that suitable people were working at the home.

People’s medicines were managed in a safe way and people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care. People were supported to maintain a healthy, balanced diet which meant their needs and preferences. People had access to healthcare professionals and their advice was followed.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The service was compliant with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

During our inspection we found staff interacted well with people who used the service. Staff were kind and caring in their manner, knew people well and provided a homely atmosphere.

We looked at care records belonging to people who used the service and found evidence that staff were responsive to people’s needs.

Social activities and stimulation was available throughout the day of the inspection. This was varied to meet people’s preferences and people enjoyed participating.

The registered provider had a complaints procedure and people we spoke with felt able to raise concerns if they needed to. Complaints received had been followed up effectively and used to develop the service.

The registered provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Residents and relative’s meetings took place and people felt they had a voice.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.