Archived: Longridge Hall and Lodge

Longridge Hall and Lodge is a residential care home for up to 60 people. Longridge Hall and Lodge is a purpose built home located in a residential area of Longridge and close to local amenities. The home is registered to provide accommodation for people who require assistance with personal care without nursing. Accommodation is provided in large single bedrooms with ensuite facilities of a wet area with shower, a toilet and a wash basin. The property is built on two floors. Each floor has a large lounge/dining room, plus several smaller lounges. There are safe garden areas with outdoor seating provided. Ample parking is provided to the front of the premises. At the time of the visit there were 57 people who lived at the home.

At the last inspection in July 2014 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

The registered manager had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take appropriate action when required. They analysed information about these events to reduce the risk of future occurance.

Recruitment checks were carried out to ensure only suitable people were employed to work at the home. Our observations and discussions with staff and people who lived at the home confirmed sufficient staff were on duty.

The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people who lived at the home. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care and support people required.

Care plans were in place to guide staff with how people wished to be supported. People who received support or, where appropriate, others acting on their behalf were involved in decisions and consented to their care.

Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. Systems were in place to ensure people received their medicines safely.

We observed regular snacks and drinks were provided between meals to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration. Comments from people who lived at the home were all positive about the quality of meals provided.

We found people had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met.

People who lived at the home told us they were encouraged to participate in a range of activities that had been organised. Entertainers were arranged on a regular basis, as were trips out to various places.

People who lived at the home and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint. The complaints procedure was available and people said they were encouraged to raise concerns.

The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided to people. These included regular audits of the service, as well as staff and resident meetings to seek the views of people about their experiences of the service they received.

We found that none of the night staff were asleep on duty when we arrived out of hours. There was no evidence around the home anywhere to suggest staff had been sleeping on duty. Fall mats we checked were plugged in and working. No people who lived at the home were being awoken during the early hours against their wishes or care plan. Some people were prioritised for care in the morning but only those who were awake and at risk of soiling themselves.

There was no evidence to suggest that staff were completing tasks on their own which required more than one member of staff. Where people were transferred in wheelchairs we saw footplates were in use for personal safety.

Care plans we looked at were up to date and had been reviewed on a monthly basis.

People received their medication in a safe manner at the times required.

Appropriate systems and checks were in place to check and monitor the quality of service delivered.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people who used the service, their relatives and the staff told us.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe and secure. Staff underwent a comprehensive induction before they began work, so they had the knowledge and skill to provide care safely.

We saw that the home was clean and well maintained. All the people we spoke to told us that this was always the case.

Recruitment procedures were rigorous and thorough.

The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). An application had been made and authorised for the service to deprive one person of their liberty. We found the correct policies and procedures were in place relating to the MCA and DoLS.

Appropriate plans were in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies and staff understood their responsibilities.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that they understood people’s care and support needs and that they knew them well. One person told us: "It's a lovely place, best around...They know what they're doing." Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people. People told us they were able to do things at their own pace and were not rushed. Our observations confirmed this. One person commented: "The staff are always polite and respectful." A visiting relative told us: "Dignity and respect are very important to us and the staff are very good when it comes to that, they treat people very well." Another said: "They're very attentive and caring, even though people can sometimes be very difficult."

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. People told us they met with their key workers to discuss what was important to them. Records confirmed people’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided that met their wishes.

The district nurse confirmed the service was good at making referrals to other healthcare professionals and adjusting care plans in light of changes in people's needs.

The service had appropriate policies and procedures in place to handle complaints.

Is the service well-led?

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. People told us they were asked for their feedback on the service they received and that they had also filled in a customer satisfaction survey. Changes had been made to the laundry following issues people raised at the residents and relative's meeting, showing the service listened to and acted on people's views.

Staff and visitors we spoke with told us the manager was approachable and was always available to offer guidance or listen to concerns. Staff spoke of a good team and of trust and understanding from the manager.

We saw that family members sent acknowledgements to the staff. 'He did enjoy his stay with you. Each and every member of staff cared for him without question'. And 'We want to express our heartfelt thanks for all the love and affection'.

People told us they were satisfied with the catering arrangements. 'We get a menu every day its lovely food.' 'I have no complaints'. 'I enjoy my food, no complaints in that department. I can change my mind if I take a fancy to something else. It isn't something I do often. We get a good choice anyway.'

People also told us there were no rules to follow and no rigid routines.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received and people were supported to express any concern or complaint they had.

A relative told they were given information to look at, and 'They asked all the right questions and offered her a place'.

People told us staff responded well to their needs. 'I can't walk very well. The girls are at hand when I want any help'. A relative told us, 'They are very good with her. She doesn't recognise me but it's comforting to see her well cared for'.

People told us there were no rigid routines. They could approach the manager with any issue that troubled them.

People said facilities in the home were 'Top class, and 'excellent'.

We were told staff were 'nice', 'friendly', and 'O.K.' One person said, 'Everything I need is here and the staff are marvellous'.

A visitor told us, 'They (the staff) are very, very good. I have no worries; they have been good to her, and supportive to me. And 'You get to know the staff and they know mum and what she likes'.

People said they were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. 'I discuss the help I need. They are very good. I have a shower when I want one'. 'I like to knit for pleasure. The money I make from my knitting is for the home. They always ask for my opinion on how the money should be spent'.