Archived: Oriel Lodge

Updated 2 August 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 checked 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 comprehensive inspection took place on 20 and 22 May 2017. The inspection was unannounced and carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection the provider completed 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 the improvements they plan to make. Before our inspection, we reviewed the information in the PIR along with information we held about the home, which included incident notifications they had sent us.

On the days of the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, a director of the service, six people and three members of staff. We looked at three people’s care and support records. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service such as the daily records, policies, audits and training records.

We observed how people were supported and we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 2 August 2017

Oriel Lodge is a care home for up to 22 older people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 17 people living at the service

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service had met all relevant fundamental standards and continued to be rated Good..

The provider had signed up for the dignity and dementia pledge. The service and staff demonstrated their commitment to care for people with dignity, to further improve and to follow best practice for the care of people living with dementia. They ensured they kept up to date with current practice and linked with care provider forums and support groups. They ensured people had access to the local community facilities. The community was invited to enter the home and participate in social activities.

A registered manager was 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.

There were systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. The provider continually looked to make things work better so that people benefitted from an improved service. Any planned improvement actions were followed up to ensure they were implemented.

Staff described the registered manager as supportive and approachable. Comments from surveys and compliments received by the service confirmed that people were happy with the service and the support received.

People were kept safe. Any risks to people's health and welfare were well managed. The premises were well maintained and staff were trained in how to move people requiring assistance from one place to another safely. Staff received safeguarding adults training and were knowledgeable about safeguarding issues. They knew what to do if concerns were raised and who to report the concerns to.

Pre-employment checks were robust and ensured that unsuitable staff could not be employed to work in the service. The management of medicines was in line with good and safe practice.

Staffing levels for each shift were calculated to ensure each person's care and support needs could be met. The numbers were adjusted as and when people's needs changed. All staff were provided with the training they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively. The provider placed great emphasis on giving those staff who had proved themselves, extra responsibility. These staff members had taken lead roles in key areas. New staff to the service were well supported and completed an induction training programme. They were supported by a buddy and a mentor until they had settled in to their role. All other staff had a programme of refresher training to complete. Care staff were encouraged to complete nationally recognised qualifications in health and social care.

People were supported to make their own choices and decisions where possible. Staff understood the need for consent and what to do where people lacked the capacity to make decisions. We found the home to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were provided with the food and drink they liked to eat. There was a real commitment by the catering staff and the care team to ensure that people enjoyed their food and received a balanced diet. Where there were risks of malnutrition or dehydration there were plans in place to reduce that risk.

Arrangements were made for people to see their GP and other healthcare professionals as and when they needed to do so.

People received a service that was caring and met their individual care and support needs. The staff were aware of the need for good working relationships with the people they looked after. People said they were well looked after. There were many examples of where the staff had gone that extra mile to meet people's social and emotional needs which had resulted in improved well-being.

Care planning processes ensured that each person was provided with person-centred care and where possible had been involved in drawing up their care plans. Care plans were well written and provided detailed information about how the person wanted to be looked after and how their care was to be delivered. People were encouraged to have a say about things that mattered to them and to raise any concerns they may have.

Further information is in the detailed findings below