Archived: Lonsdale House

Updated 23 July 2015

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.

The inspection took place on 27 May 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection was done by one inspector and one 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 care service. The expert by experience had experience of using mental health services.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information that we held about the service. This included notifications sent by the provider including reports of safeguarding alerts and other incidents within the service. We also contacted the safeguarding team at the local authority.

During the inspection we spoke with five people who used the service and four members of staff. We also reviewed three people’s care records, five staff files and other records about the running of the service.

Updated 23 July 2015

The inspection took place on 27 May 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection in December 2013 the provider was meeting all of the requirements that we looked at.

Lonsdale House provides accommodation for adults with mental health problems. At the time of the inspection there were 14 people using the service. The service had a registered manager in post. 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 kept safe and protected from harm by staff who had a good understanding of safeguarding and the different types of abuse. Staff members we spoke with were all confident in reporting any concerns and knew the correct process to follow. People had detailed risk assessments that clearly set out the risks involved with their care with clear guidance for staff to manage these risks and keep people safe. There were enough staff to provide people with the level of support they required.

People’s medicines were managed safely, and people were supported to manage their own medicines wherever possible. We saw that medicines were all stored correctly in locked cabinets and there was a clear process for recording and auditing medicines so that they could all be accounted for.

People were cared for by staff who were well trained and supported, and were confident in providing people with effective care that met their needs.

People were asked for their consent for care and were provided with care that protected their freedom and promoted their rights their rights. Staff asked people for their permission to perform care tasks and gave people choices about their support.

People received the food and drink they required, and were supported to shop and cook for themselves wherever possible. We saw that people had a choice from the menu which was available in all the communal areas. People were able to request different meals if they did not like the choices on the menu.

We saw that staff had good caring relationships with people and knew each person’s individual preferences and needs well. People told us they liked the staff and felt the service was caring and supported them well. Staff respected people’s privacy and personal space. We were told that staff used the monitors to talk to people in their rooms and asked permission to come in and to perform any care tasks required.

People had detailed care plans that were personalised to their particular needs, and staff had a good knowledge of these plans. People had been involved in the development of their care plans, and were involved in the reviews along with family members and other professionals involved in their care.

The provider had a complaints policy in place and people knew how to make a complaint or give their feedback about the service. People told us they felt confident to raise any issues with members of staff or the registered manager, and that their concerns would be listened to and addressed.

The service had an open culture that encouraged people to be involved in the service. There were regular resident meetings that allowed people to discuss their feelings about the service and talk through any issues or suggestions they had.

There were regular audits as part of a quality assurance programme to make sure that people received high quality care. We saw details of these audits and updates to people’s care records from these. We saw there were regular reviews of care files to make sure they were kept up to date to reflect people’s changing needs.