26 April 2016
During a routine inspection
We visited the service on 26 April and 4 May 2016 to complete an unannounced comprehensive inspection. We did this to check they had followed their plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. We found the registered provider and registered manager addressed the breaches and taken action to comply with the requirements of those regulations. However further improvements were required, to ensure sufficient staff were appropriately deployed to make sure people who lived at the home were kept safe.
Langdales is a care home that provides 24-hour residential care. In addition, the service is able to provide short-term respite breaks. Langdales is a detached building located in central Blackpool. The home was registered to accommodate up to 26 older people who required assistance with personal care. Accommodation was arranged around the ground and first floor with office accommodation on the second floor. There was a small garden area to the rear of the building. There was a passenger lift for ease of access and the home was wheelchair accessible. At the time of the inspection there were 18 people who lived at the home.
A registered manager was in place. 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 service is run.
During our inspection undertaken on 12 April 2016 we found no breaches of legal requirements.
We found the registered manager had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take appropriate action when required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report any unsafe care.
Staff had received training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.
There were mixed responses to the question about staffing levels and time spent with people who lived at the home. For example a comment from a person who lived at the home included, “Sometimes they’re short staffed.” We recommended the registered manager review staffing levels at the home to ensure people were safe with sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs.
We found recruitment checks were carried out to ensure suitable people were employed to work at the home. This was confirmed by talking with staff members and looking at records of staff recruitment.
Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided
Medicines were dispensed in a safe manner and people received their medicines on time. Staff had received related training to ensure medicines were administered correctly by knowledgeable staff. Controlled drugs were administered at the time of the inspection visit. We found correct documentation was recorded to ensure accurate administration of controlled drugs.
The registered provider 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.
We saw regular snacks and drinks were provided between meals to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration. We observed the lunch time meal which was well organised. People who required support to eat their meals were supported by staff who were caring and patient. The cook had information about people’s dietary needs and these were met. One person who lived at the home said about the quality of food, “I’m very happy with the food thank you.”
We found people had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met. On the day of our inspection visit we saw one person was supported by a staff member to attend a hospital appointment. This ensured the service had up to date information about the outcome of the person’s appointment.
We observed staff treated people with respect, patience and dignity. People we spoke with told us staff were caring and respectful.
The service had appointed ‘activity co-ordinators’ to ensure people were provided with social events and activities that met their individual and collective needs. A staff member said, “We will be getting out and about in the bus a lot more now.”
There was a complaints policy in place, which was understood by staff. Information on the complaints procedure was available in the reception of the home.
The management team used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. We looked at a number of audits that had taken place. This ensured the service continued to be monitored and improvements made when they were identified.
People who lived at the home and relatives had opportunities to feed back to the management team. This was about the quality of their care through surveys and meetings.