Beulah Lodge

Updated 5 April 2022

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 23 February 2022 and was unannounced.

Updated 5 April 2022

This inspection took place on 13 November 2018 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection of Beulah Lodge since being registered under this provider in November 2017.

Beulah Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Beulah Lodge is registered to provide personal care for up to 5 people. There were 5 people living at the service at the time of our inspection all of whom had a learning disability.

Beulah Lodge has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service were living as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

People told us that staff were kind and caring and treated people with respect. This was confirmed by our observations. People were satisfied with the quality of care they received. They enjoyed the meals provided and said they had sufficient to eat and drink.

People’s health care needs were monitored and they had access to appropriate external health care professionals where required. People had the opportunity to participate in a range of activities at the home and in the community. Staff supported people to stay in contact with the people that mattered to them. Relatives and friends were welcomed at the service.

People received personalised care because they were supported by a consistent staff team who had worked at the service for many years. Staff knew people well and understood their routines and preferences. This was despite some aspects of people’s care plans not being personalised.

People’s rights were protected because staff acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Appropriate assessments had been completed where people’s capacity was in doubt. When necessary people received the support of an external advocate to help them make decisions relating to their care. Staff gained consent from people before care was delivered.

There were appropriate plans in place to ensure that risks to people were managed effectively. Staff understood what to do to minimise risks in relation to people. Staff understood what to do if an emergency occurred at the service.

People told us that they felt safe at the service. Staff had received training in safeguarding people from abuse and they had good knowledge of what they needed to do if they suspected abuse. The provider had not recruited any new staff to work at the service since taking over the service but had an appropriate recruitment process in place.

There was a sufficient number of staff to support people when they needed it. People felt that staff were competent in their roles. Staff received training and supervision and felt supported by the registered manager and provider.

People’s medicines were managed safely by staff who had received relevant training. Staff understood the need for good infection control practice to reduce the risk of spreading infections. The environment was set up to meet the needs of people living at the service.

There were systems in place to assess the quality of care and to make improvements. This included audits and residents’ and staff meetings. Improvements had been made as a result of these measures.

The provider had not received any complaints but there was a system in place to ensure that complaints were recorded, investigated and responded to appropriately. People and staff felt the service was well-managed. Staff said they felt valued. We could see that the staff team worked well together and that staff enjoyed working there.