Lunesdale House

Updated 6 November 2020

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 coronavirus pandemic we are conducting a thematic review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes.

The service was selected to take part in this thematic review which is seeking to identify examples of good practice in infection prevention and control.

This inspection took place on 22 October 2020 and was announced

Updated 6 November 2020

This comprehensive inspection took place on 11 April 2018 and was unannounced. At our last focused inspection of the service in March 2016 we found a breach of Regulation17 Good Governance of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.This was because records did not accurately reflect people’s moving and handling needs.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key question safe to at least good. At this inspection we found that the provider had completed those actions and we found the service was meeting the fundamental standards of quality and safety.

Lunesdale House is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to19 people. On the day of this inspection the home was fully occupied. The service is situated near the small town of Milnthorpe.

There was 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. In this service the registered provider is also the registered manager.

Records for managing risks during moving and handling had improved since our last inspection. However some staff we spoke with were not always clear about what actions they would take if someone fell and required lifting from the floor.

Medicines were being administered and kept safely. We have made a recommendation that the provider ensures that the records for administration of variable dose medications identifies the quantities given.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to meet people’s needs. Staff training was ongoing and people had received sufficient training to safely support and care for people. Staff were supported by the registered and care manager through regular staff meetings, supervision and appraisals.

We saw that the service worked with a variety of external agencies and health professionals to provide appropriate care and support to meet people’s physical and emotional health needs.

Where safeguarding concerns or incidents had occurred these had been reported by the registered manager to the appropriate authorities and we could see records of the actions that had been taken by the home to protect people.

When employing fit and proper persons the recruitment process had included all of the required checks of suitability.

People’s rights were protected. The registered manager was knowledgeable about their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were only deprived of their liberty if this had been authorised by the appropriate body or where applications had been made to do so.

Hazards to people’s safety had been identified and managed. People were supported to access activities that were made available to them and pastimes of their choice.

People’s dignity and privacy were actively promoted by the staff supporting them.

People were treated with respect and their relatives made very positive comments about the staff team who supported them.

Auditing and quality monitoring systems were in place that allowed the service to demonstrate effectively the safety and quality of the provision.

The focus of the service was on promoting people’s rights. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Some incidents requiring notifications to be made to CQC had not been done. The failure to notify us of matters of concern as outlined in the registration regulations is a breach of the provider's condition of registration and this matter is being dealt with outside of the inspection process.

Further information is in the detailed findings below