We carried out a review of the data available to us about Lyndale on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Lyndale, you can give feedback on this service.
Lyndale is registered to provide personal care to ten people with learning disabilities, aged 18 and over. Lyndale accommodates eight people in one adapted building and has two independent living style flats attached.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People who lived at the home continued to receive good care. Staff knew people well and provided support that met people's needs and enabled them to take part in activities within the home and community in line with their preferences. People were supported with kindness and consideration. Staff knew how to keep people safe and had received training in how to reduce the risks of harm from occurring.
People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them. The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
People received medications safely and risks to people had been assessed and managed to identify and reduce the impact of any known risks. People were supported to access healthcare services as needed and staff responded promptly to changes in people's health. Routine checks and audits were carried out to ensure that all aspects of the service were being delivered safely.
People's rights were upheld and protected, and people received kind support and assistance to have choice and control over their day to day lives. People's preferences were known by staff and enabled people to do as much as possible for themselves.
Effective monitoring systems were in place enabling people to have a good quality of life. People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the home and the management team were keen to identify other improvements that could be made to support people to further improve their lives.
The registered manager was aware of their responsibility to report events that occurred within the home to the CQC and other external agencies, complying with the regulations.
Rating at last inspection:
The service was rated Good at the last inspection (report published 02 November 2016).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
The provider of Lyndale is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to ten people with learning disabilities.
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 home is run.
People were supported to make safe choices in relation to taking risks in their day to day lives. Staff had been trained and understood how to support people in a way which protected them from danger, harm and abuse.
People were supported by staff they knew well and were familiar with their different routines and individual needs. Many of the staff team had worked at the home for some years which helped people to feel safe, secure and comfortable in their presence. There was sufficient staff on duty to support each person with their individual needs which included doing fun and interesting things.
People were involved in saying what their preferences were for receiving their medicine and what support they wanted from staff. They received their medicine from staff who were trained to safely administer these and who made sure people had their medicine when they needed it.
The provider had recruitment arrangements in place helped to make sure new staff appointed were of good character and were suitable to work with people who lived at the home. Staff had the skills and knowledge to support people’s needs. They were supported in their roles and attended training which was relevant to the people they looked after.
Staff respected people’s rights to make their own decisions and choices about their care and treatment. People’s permission was sought by staff before they helped them with anything. Staff made sure people understood what was being said to them by using gestures, short phrases, words or special systems of pictures. When people did not have the capacity to make their own specific decisions these were made in their best interests by people who knew them well.
Staff met people’s care and support needs in the least restrictive way. Where it was felt people received care and support to keep them safe and well which may be restricting their liberty action was taken. This ensured people's liberty was not being unlawfully restricted.
People had a choice of food to eat and were prompted to maintain a healthy, balanced diet. People’s routine health needs were looked after and people had access to healthcare when they needed it.
People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. There were many examples of staff showing they cared for people and the warmth of touch was used, such as, hugs and words of reassurance . Staff promoted what people could do and supported people with dignity when they needed a little help. People’s right to private space and time to be alone and be with their visitors was accepted and respected.
Staff provided care and support to people which was personalised and responded to changes in their needs. People’s preferences and wishes were known to staff and were respected. People were consulted about their support, were helped to maintain family contacts and were supported to celebrate their diversity. There was a system for handling and resolving complaints which took into account people’s individual needs.
Regular checks were completed by the registered manager to monitor the quality of service staff provided and improvements were made where needed. People who lived at the home, relatives and staff were able to share their views about the service and were listened to. The culture of the service was to put people first and this was echoed by management and staff. People and their relatives were happy with the care people received and the support staff gave them.
The staff team was stable and so staff knew people and their preferences well. People's wellbeing and any concerns were taken seriously. Information was shared effectively between staff.
People felt able to raise any concerns with staff or the manager. The staff were suitably trained and they felt well supported. The team sought input from external professionals when needed.
There were effective leadership arrangements in place to manage the care service and monitor health and safety risks.
People told us they were very satisfied with the support they received which helped them be as independent as possible. We found that people were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement. Their diversity, values and human rights were respected.
People told us they liked the staff and they provided good care and support. They felt safe and were able to raise any concern they had.
We looked at staff training records and spoke to five staff to get their views. They felt the staffing levels allowed them to spend time with people and they were well supported and trained.
In this report the names of two registered managers appear. Ms. Sally-Ann Gillson was the manager in post at the time the inspection. Miss Susan Wargen was not in post at the time but their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.
When we visited Lyndale we met six people who lived there, the manager, deputy manager and eight staff who worked there. The people living there told us they liked all the staff and they felt safe and well supported. People appeared relaxed and at ease with the staff within their home environment.
We saw that staff were friendly, courteous and respectful towards the people who lived at the home. They were seen giving one to one attention in an unhurried way, such as playing a daily game of Scrabble that one person enjoyed. The atmosphere was calm and staff showed a good awareness of people's support and emotional needs throughout the day.
People were relaxed and at ease with the staff and within their home environment.
The people we spoke to told us they liked all the staff, they felt safe and well supported.
The parents of one person living at Lyndale told us, 'The staff are always friendly, helpful and professional, we have a good relationship with them and also the service users. Our son has been at Lyndale for almost 10 years, he has improved greatly over the time he has been there. We are extremely satisfied with the way he is treated and cared for'.
We looked at one person's care plans and risk assessments which gave clear information about the person's needs so staff knew how to provide the support required. The person had agreed and signed the information. We saw evidence that changes in the person's health and well being had been noted and appropriate action had been taken to address these. This person had attended preventative health appointments such as an annual health check and dentist check ups.
Information recorded about this person had not been formally reviewed since September 2011. The manager told us that each person's care plan will now be reviewed monthly by the person's 'keyworker' which would look at any developments or concerns in the previous month. They also agreed to expand the information about how medication will be used as part of the strategy to help this person manage their anxiety levels.