14 August 2018
During a routine inspection
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.