Archived: Langdale Heights

Updated 5 April 2017

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.

This inspection took place on 21 February 2017 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of an inspection manager, an inspector, a specialist advisor, and an expert by experience. A specialist adviser is a person with professional expertise in care and nursing. Our specialist advisor had nursing expertise. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Our expert by experience had experience of dementia care.

We reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We looked at information received from local authority and health authority commissioners. Commissioners are people who work to find appropriate care and support services for people and fund the care provided. They told us they had noted improvements at the service.

We reviewed the provider’s statement of purpose and the notifications we had been sent. A statement of purpose is a document which includes a standard required set of information about a service. Notifications are changes, events or incidents that providers must tell us about.

We spoke with nine people using the service, two relatives, the director/nominated individual and the director/human resources, the registered manager, care manager, two nurses, and five care workers.

We looked at records relating to all aspects of the service including care, staffing, and quality assurance. We also looked in detail at six people’s care records and nine people’s medicines records.

Updated 5 April 2017

This inspection took place on 21 February 2017 and was unannounced.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 31 May and 3 June 2016. Five breaches of legal requirements were found. This was because the provider had not minimised the risks to the people’s health and safety, protected people from abuse and improper treatment, supported and trained staff, ensured care was designed to achieve people’s preferences and meet their needs, and monitored and improved the quality and safety of the service.

After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach. At this inspection we found that action had been taken and all breaches had been met.

Langdale Heights has 31 beds and provides residential and nursing care to older people, some of whom are living with dementia and/or physical disabilities. It is has 27 single rooms and two double rooms. At the time of our inspection there were 26 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. This 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 said the friendly staff and the company of others made them feel safe at Langdale Heights.

Staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities to protect people from harm and knew who to contact if they had any concerns about a person’s well-being.

People gave us examples of how staff reduced risk. One person said staff made them feel safe at bedtime by putting safety rails on their bed so they didn’t fall out. Another person said staff had told them not to walk on their own in case they fell. Staff had the information they needed to help keep people safe. Medicines were safely managed and given to people when they needed them.

People told us there were enough staff employed to give them support when they needed it. Call bells were answered promptly and people didn’t have to wait long for staff to assist them. Records showed the staff employed were suitable and safe to work with people using care services.

People told us the staff were well-trained and knew what to do if someone needed support. We observed staff providing people with effective care using their skills and knowledge. For example, we saw staff assist people to move safely, ensure their dietary needs were met, and give reassurance when people needed it.

People told us they could choose what they wanted to do at the service, for example what time they got up in the morning and where they wanted to spend their day, and staff respected their choices. We saw that staff always sought people’s permission before providing them with any care.

People had mixed views about the food served. Some said they enjoyed it while others said they would like more variety. Between meals staff brought round a trolley with a wide range of drinks and snacks on it including tea and coffee, fruit juice, and cakes and biscuits. This was popular with people who enjoyed choosing things from the trolley.

Staff supported people to maintain good health and access healthcare services in the local community when they needed to. The nurses we spoke with mostly had a good understanding of people’s healthcare needs and when to refer them for specialist support.

People told us the staff were friendly, caring, compassionate, and willing. We saw staff reassure people when they needed it. When one person became distressed a staff member sat and talked with them and stroked their hand until they felt better. A staff member gave another person a hug as they said they were feeling a bit sad.

The staff we spoke with were aware of people’s preferences and interests. For example, they knew people’s favourite songs and sang them, with the people in question joining in. They respected people’s choices, for example some people liked to go to their rooms for a nap or to watch television after lunch and staff supported them to do this.

People told us they received care and support that was right for them. The care records we saw were personalised and included information about people’s chosen lifestyles, choices and preferences.

People had mixed views about the activities provided. Some were satisfied with them but others said they would like more to do. The registered manager was addressing this and said new staff were in the process of being recruited.

The atmosphere at the service was positive and upbeat. People were comfortable and happy to share their views on the service, as were the staff. We noted many improvements including the redecoration of the premises, a high standard of cleanliness throughout, and further staff training in proving personalised care. The provider had systems in place to quality assure the service and to help ensure high quality care was being provided.