Devon Lodge Residential Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

Safe arrangements were in place for professional visitors to the service. This included temperature checks, lateral flow testing, risk and health questionnaires, hand sanitisation and wearing a mask.

Isolation, cohorting and zoning was used to manage the spread of infection. This meant that people self-isolated in their rooms which were all en-suite when necessary.

Enhanced cleaning and disinfection took place to reduce the risk infection spread. There were sufficient numbers of housekeeping staff who completed checklists to record and monitor cleaning tasks.

There were sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) including masks, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser available. Staff had received training in infection prevention and control, PPE including donning and doffing and hand hygiene.

A regular programme of testing for COVID-19 was in place for staff and people who lived in the service. This meant swift action could be taken if any positive results were received.

Infection prevention and control audits took place which ensured the registered manager had oversight of all aspects of infection control. Policies, procedures and risk assessments related to COVID-19 were up to date which supported staff to keep people safe.

Devon Lodge is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to 26 older people. At the time of our inspection there were 22 people using the service.

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

People received safe care and were protected against avoidable harm, neglect and discrimination. Risks to people's safety were assessed and strategies were put in place to reduce any risks. There were sufficient numbers of staff who had been safely recruited to meet people's needs.

Peoples medicines were safely managed, and systems were in place to control and prevent the spread of infection.

People's care needs were assessed before they went to live at the service, to ensure their needs could be fully met.

Staff received an induction when they first commenced work at the service and ongoing training that enabled them to have the skills and knowledge to provide effective care.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain their health and well-being. Staff placed a strong emphasis on the dining experience to ensure it was enjoyed by all. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and access healthcare services.

The service had a vibrant and welcoming atmosphere where visitors were welcomed and encouraged. The premises were homely and adapted to meet the needs of people using the service.

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.

Staff provided care and support in a very caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service very well and had built up kind and compassionate relationships with them. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support. People's privacy and dignity was

always maintained.

Care plans were detailed and supported staff to provide personalised care. People were encouraged to take part in a variety of activities and interests of their choice. There was a complaints procedure in place and systems to deal with complaints effectively. The service provided appropriate end of life care to people when required.

The service was well managed. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and actions were taken, and improvements were made when required. Everyone without exception praised highly the registered manager who was approachable, resourceful and provided strong leadership. All staff told us they

were motivated to work with the registered manager to ensure people received good quality care.

The service worked in partnership with outside agencies. Staff, people using the services and relatives were encouraged to provide feedback which was analysed and acted upon.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 08 June 2017)

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

Provide a brief overview of the service (e.g. Type of care provided, size, facilities, number of people using it, whether there is or should be a registered manager etc).

N.B. If there is or should be a registered manager include this statement to describe what a registered manager is:

‘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.’

Give a summary of your findings for the service, highlighting what the service does well and drawing attention to areas where improvements could be made. Where a breach of regulation has been identified, summarise, in plain English, how the provider was not meeting the requirements of the law and state ‘You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.’ Please note that the summary section will be used to populate the CQC website. Providers will be asked to share this section with the people who use their service and the staff that work at there.

People who used the service described staff as friendly and we found that staff respected the wishes of people who used the service and got their consent before providing care.

People who used the service told us they enjoyed their meals and we saw the lunch time meal was well presented and looked appetising.

Records showed that an assessment of people's needs had been carried out and care plans based on the assessment informed staff about the care to be delivered. We found that in most cases care plans reflected the care people needed and had agreed. We saw that advice and treatment had been sought from relevant health professionals when people's needs changed. We spoke with three carers, a senior carer and the cook. We found they were knowledgeable about the needs of people who used the service and their responsibilities in relation to the delivery of care.

Medication was safely managed and recruitment checks were sufficiently robust to guard against employing unsuitable staff.

We spoke with the manager and the business adviser. We found that Devon Lodge was well managed with systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of care.

We saw that the staff related well with people who used the service, they worked at a relaxed pace and their interactions with people demonstrated that they valued and promoted the involvement of all people who used the service.

We found a schedule of daily activities was provided and that people were positively encouraged to engage in one to one and group activities. This meant that each person had the opportunities to participate in various activities and receive the support and encouragement they needed to lead fulfilling lives.