Christmas Lodge

Updated 29 March 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the registered 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 comprehensive inspection took place on 11 and 18 January 2018. It was unannounced on the first day of the inspection and we made arrangements to return on the second day.

The first day of the inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector, a specialist advisor whose background was mental health services and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. In this instance, the expert had experience of mental health services. The second day was carried out by two adult social care inspectors.

Before the inspection, the registered provider was asked to complete a 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 reviewed the information we held about the service including notifications about any incidents in the service. We requested feedback from the local authority contracts and commissioning team and they did not raise any concerns about the service. We also received feedback from three health and social care professionals. We used all of this information to plan the inspection.

During the inspection we spoke with nine people who used the service and two relatives of people who used the service. We spoke with the registered manager, the operations director, three care staff and one member of ancillary staff. We looked around the home and observed daily activities, including the support people received with their medicines, the mealtime experience and interactions between staff and people who used the service. We looked at records relating to the care of four people. We also reviewed three staff recruitment records, induction and training records, and a selection of records used to monitor the quality of the service.

Updated 29 March 2018

This inspection took place on 11 and 18 January 2018. It was unannounced on the first day of the inspection and we made arrangements to return on the second day.

Christmas Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service provides support for people who have enduring mental health needs. The home is situated near to York racecourse and is close to shops and amenities.

At our previous inspection in October 2015 the service was rated Good in the key questions ‘Is the service safe’, ‘effective’ and ‘well-led?’ and Outstanding in the key questions ‘Is the service caring’ and ‘responsive?’ This meant the service was rated Outstanding overall.

At this inspection the rating for the key question ‘Is the service responsive?’ changed to Good. The other key questions remained the same. This means the service is now rated Good overall.

The service has a registered manager. 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.

The service continued to be extremely caring. People we spoke with were unanimously positive in their praise of staff and told us they were very kind and compassionate. Staff knew people well and were highly motivated to provide care that was focussed on people’s individual needs and wishes. It was evident that people felt valued and respected. There was a very friendly and supportive atmosphere in the home.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and staff supported people in achieving their aspirations. For example, one person had fulfilled their lifelong ambition to take a helicopter ride.

People told us they felt very safe. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and robust recruitment checks were completed to ensure the suitability of workers. Staff were supported in their role; they received induction, training, supervision and appraisal.

People were supported to have 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.

People received appropriate support with their medicines. Where people wished to manage their own medicines independently this was encouraged and there were checks in place to ensure it was done safely.

Staff were aware of the importance of supporting people with good nutrition and hydration. Associated information was recorded in their care files. The staff had been successful in supporting people to gain weight, where this had been a concern. We received positive feedback about the food and saw that people, where possible, were encouraged to shop for and prepare their own meals. People had access to healthcare services, in order to promote their physical and mental health.

The premises was homely and suitable for people’s needs. People were involved in decisions about the decoration and the provider had taken steps to make the environment more accessible in response to changes in people’s needs. The environment and equipment was regularly checked and serviced.

There were detailed, person-centred care plans in place, so that staff had information on how to support people. These were regularly reviewed with the person. People were able take part in a range of activities of their choosing and they accessed the community independently or with the support of staff.

People’s views and opinions were sought in individual review meetings and ‘resident’s meetings’. We saw that people’s feedback was acted on. There was a complaints procedure in place, should anyone wish to raise a complaint.

There was a quality assurance system which enabled the registered provider to monitor the quality of the service provided.

We received positive feedback about the registered manager and the senior management team. Comments from people, relatives, staff and visiting healthcare professionals indicated there was a positive, person-centred culture within the service.