• Care Home
  • Care home

Burdyke Lodge

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Southdown Road, Seaford, East Sussex, BN25 4JS (01323) 490880

Provided and run by:
Burdyke Lodge Ltd

Important: The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All Inspections

12 April 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Burdyke Lodge is a residential care home providing personal care to 15 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 27 people. People were living with a range of needs associated with the frailties of old age.

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

At the last inspection we identified improvements were needed to ensure there was an effective quality assurance system to identify concerns and drive necessary improvement. At this inspection we found some improvements had been made but these had not always been sustained. We also found that where the need for improvements had been identified action was not always taken in a timely way.

There were not enough staff employed at the home. Staff worked hard to ensure people’s care and support needs were met. However, the staffing levels impacted on other aspects of the service including the cleanliness of the home, activities for people and some aspects of quality assurance.

Environmental risks were not always managed safely. This included some aspects of fire safety and general safety and upkeep of the home. Risks to people were well managed. Staff knew people well and understood how to support them safely. There was a large, well-kept garden where people enjoyed spending time during the warmer weather.

People received care and support that met their individual needs and wishes. Staff understood the care and support people wished to receive. This included their individual choices and preferences. There was a positive culture at the home and staff were committed to ensuring people lived happy lives.

People were protected from the risks of harm, abuse or discrimination because staff knew what actions to take if they identified concerns.

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.

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

Rating at last inspection and update The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 16 October 2019). There was one breach of regulation.

The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found the provider remained in breach of regulations.

At our last inspection we recommended that the provider ensured staff received appropriate practical training. We also recommended they work with people to improve and develop meaningful activities for everybody. At this inspection we found the provider had not ensured staff received appropriate practical training. We found there had been some improvements to meaningful activities. However, due to current staffing concerns these improvements had not been maintained.

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 16 October 2019). The service remains rated requires improvement.

Why we inspected

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 12 August 2019. A breach of legal requirements was found. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve their quality assurance systems.

This inspection was also, prompted in part, due to concerns received about fire safety risks. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.

We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan, to check if they now met legal requirements and to examine the risks identified to us. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe, Responsive and Well-led which contain those requirements.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the Safe, Responsive and Well-led sections of this report.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service remains Requires Improvement.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Burdyke Lodge on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Enforcement

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to monitor the service and will take further action if needed.

We have identified breaches in relation to the staffing, risk management and the quality assurance systems at this inspection.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report. Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

12 August 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Burdyke Lodge is a residential care home providing personal care to 19 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 27 people. People were living with a range of needs associated with the frailties of old age.

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

The provider lacked effective quality assurance systems to identify concerns in the service and drive necessary improvement. Where the need for improvement was identified these were not always addressed in a timely way.

The provider had not always sent us notifications when people had died. Notifications are information about important events the service is required to send us by law.

Staff received training that helped them to deliver the care and support that people needed. However, staff had not received recent practical training in relation to moving and handling and first aid. We made a recommendation about this.

Although there was a range of activities taking place, improvements were needed to ensure people had enough to do each day and activities were meaningful and reflected their individual interests. We made a recommendation about this.

People received support from staff who knew them well, understood their needs and were kind and caring. People’s care and support needs were assessed and reviewed. This meant people received care that was person-centred and reflected their needs and choices.

There was a positive, person-centred culture at Burdyke Lodge. People felt well supported by the provider, manager and staff. One person said. “You won’t find a better place than this.”

Staff understood the risks associated with the people they supported. Risk assessments provided further guidance for staff about individual and environmental risks. People were supported to receive their medicines when they needed them.

People were protected from the risks of harm, abuse or discrimination because staff knew what actions they should take if they identified concerns. There were enough staff working to provide the support people needed, at times of their choice.

Staff received supervision and told us they were well supported by the manager and provider.

People's health and well-being needs were met. They were supported to receive healthcare services when they needed them. People were supported to eat a wide range of healthy, freshly cooked meals, drinks and snacks each day. They were given choices about what they would like to eat and drink.

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.

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 10 December 2016).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Enforcement

We have identified breaches in relation to the quality assurance system at this inspection.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

3 November 2016

During a routine inspection

Burdyke Lodge is registered with CQC to provide residential care for up to 27 older people. Three rooms are available to be used as double rooms if requested, however at the time of the inspection these were being used for single occupancy only and there were 23 people living at the home.

People’s level of care and support needs varied. People were independently mobile some using walking frames. Many were self-caring and required only guidance and prompting from staff,. A number of people went out alone or with friends and family, whilst others required more assistance with all care needs and remained in bed or in their rooms as they chose.

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 3 and 8 November 2016.

At the last inspection undertaken July 2015 CQC did not identify any breaches of regulation. However we did make some recommendations about the safe administration of medicines, and ensuring professionalism and dignified care were maintained at all times.

There was a registered manager at the home; however the day to day running of the service was the responsibility of the home manager. 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. The registered manager was also the registered provider. People spoke highly of the home and the way it was run. And staff told us that they felt supported.

Staff had an understanding about how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns. Staff were clear that any concerns would be reported to the home or registered manager.

Risk assessments were completed for identified health and environmental needs. This included specific health related risks for the individual and environmental risks for the premises. Medicines policies and procedures ensured people received their medicines safely. People who looked after their own medicines without support from staff had risk assessments to support this. These were reviewed regularly to ensure medicine procedures remained safe.

Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated. Documentation was personalised and included peoples choices and the involvement of family and next of kin or significant others when appropriate. There was information to inform staff of people’s backgrounds and health needs. People who moved to Burdyke Lodge for a short period of respite care had care information in place. These were updated during the inspection to ensure they contained the level of detail in permanent care folders; however staff knew people and their needs well.

People living at Burdyke Lodge told us that staff responded to them promptly when they needed assistance and they felt staffing levels were appropriate. Staff had received training and support and felt they had the knowledge and skills to provide care for people appropriately.

People had capacity to make decisions and felt involved in decisions and choices about their care. Staff told us how they supported people’s choices and preferences. Management had an understanding of mental capacity assessments (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

We received positive feedback regarding the meals provided. Meal choices were available and people were supported to eat a healthy balanced diet. People’s weights were monitored regularly to identify any health changes, however when people declined to be weighed, this was not always clear from documentation. Referrals were made to GPs and other health professionals when required to help maintain people’s good health.

Staff were kind, caring and supportive. They knew people well and were able to tell us about peoples likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff spoke to people and we saw light hearted banter between staff and people living at Burdyke Lodge. It was clear that people enjoyed this and they responded positively. People’s dignity and privacy were respected and everyone told us the atmosphere was homely and welcoming.

Activities were scheduled most days. This was predominately provided by visiting organisations, although staff told us they did some activity provision themselves. We saw that people went out or kept themselves busy throughout the day, some sitting to read the newspaper or watch television whilst others chose to remain in their rooms.

There was a homely warm atmosphere and people were encouraged to share their views and give feedback regularly. This included information about living at Burdyke Lodge, feedback on the home environment, staffing and meal provision. A system was in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provided. Some areas needed to be expanded to ensure all areas of auditing were effective. Audit information was used to continually improve and develop the service.

20 and 21 July 2015

During a routine inspection

Burdyke Lodge is a residential home providing care for older people in Seaford. People living at Burdyke Lodge required varying levels of care and support. Many were highly independent and just required some assistance with washing and dressing and others required assistance with all care needs. People told us, “This is a lovely place to be.” Two visitors told us, “We have visited a number of other homes, this is by far the best.” And “When I need somewhere I will come here, it’s just so lovely here.”

This service provides care funded privately or by the local authority.

The service is registered to provide care for up to 27 people. At the time of the inspection there were 22 people living at the service.

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 20 and 21 July 2015.

Burdyke Lodge had a registered manager. 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.

The service was in a period of transition due to changes in management. Staff told us about the recent changes made to the service. In general, staff felt that it was a friendly place to work and knew that management were always available to support them. However, It was clear from talking to people that not all staff had remained professional in discussions with people using the service.

There was an acting manager who was in day to day charge of the running of the service. People told us that the registered manager and acting manager had very different management styles. This had caused some tension within the day to day running of the service for staff and people living at the service. The registered manager visited the service regularly and was in the process of overseeing the acting manager’s transition before the registration process commenced with CQC. The registered manager was on holiday at the time of the inspection.

There was no guidance in place for ‘as required’ medicines to ensure consistency in administration. We have made a recommendation about the management of some medicines.

Personal emergency evacuation plans were in place for everyone living at the service. The fire risk assessment needed to be updated.

It was unclear what hours the registered manager spent at the service as this had not been documented. The acting manager worked full time at the service, supported by the deputy manager.

Kitchen audits had not been fully completed. However auditing for other areas of the service had been completed monthly, this included falls, accidents and incidents.

People’s care needs had been regularly reviewed to ensure that any changes were identified and related risk assessments completed. People were involved in monthly reviews which were carried out with them by their keyworker.

People were asked for their consent before care was provided and had their privacy and dignity respected.

People’s nutritional needs were monitored and reviewed. People had a choice of meals provided and staff knew people’s likes and dislikes.

Referrals were made appropriately to outside agencies when required. For example GP appointments and community nursing visits.

People’s independence was encouraged and supported. Activities were provided for people who wished to attend. Many people went out alone or regularly with family and friends.

There was an on-going recruitment programme to ensure that appropriate staffing levels were maintained and to ensure staff were safe to provide care to people. Staff received a period of induction with on-going support provided. There was a clear programme of staff training, regular supervision and appraisals.

Staff had a good knowledge of how to recognise and report abuse. Staff felt their training needs were met and they had opportunity for further future development.

Feedback was gained from people this included questionnaires and meetings.

There was an on call rota to ensure management availability at all times should an emergency occur.

4 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with the manager, deputy manager, five members of staff, five people who used the service and three relatives. We consulted four care plans, the service's policies and three staff files. We inspected the premises, visited the kitchens and discussed catering arrangements with the chef.

We found that care plans were comprehensive, reflected people's individual needs and provided direction that enabled staff to give people the appropriate care.

We saw that nutritional and well balanced food was prepared in maintained and clean kitchens. People who used the service told us that the food was of a high quality and one person told us 'The food here is really good, I like it and they always go out of their way if I want something special'.

The provider had policies and procedures in place to deal with complaints, incidents and to safeguard vulnerable adults. Staff received appropriate training and were confident about the procedures they needed to follow if they had any concerns.

We found that there were sufficient numbers of skilled staff employed and available at the home to meet people's needs. This was complimented with a clear and robust recruitment procedure that ensured staff were skilled and qualified to carry out their roles effectively.

19 July 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Dignity and Nutrition

People told us what it was like to live at Burdyke Lodge and described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. They also told us about the quality and choice of food and drink available. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people living in care homes are treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs are met.

The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector joined by an Expert by Experience (people who have experience of using services and who can provide that perspective).

During the day we spoke with 12 of the 22 people present and with one visitor to the home. Overall, people spoke very positively about the home and the care provided. Everyone said that they would happily speak with the manager or deputy if they had any concerns or worries.

Comments included, 'They speak to me in a kind and gentle manner and use the shortened version of my name that I like'. 'Sometimes I need a drink at 3am in the morning and it's no problem at all'. One person said, 'The girls are very good on the whole, they're chatty, happy, kind, caring and thoughtful'.