Archived: Ernehale Lodge Care Home

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using 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.

Prior to our inspection we reviewed all the information we had received from the provider. We spoke with four people who used the service to help us understand their experiences. We also spoke with one person's relative.

We spoke with two people who were residing at the home, two visitors, care staff, the registered manager and representatives from the management team. We also looked at records held at the service, including care plans and staff recruitment records.

Is the service safe?

People residing at the home told us that in their opinion, the care and support was provided to people in a safe and caring manner. One person told us, 'I feel very safe here,' another person said, 'It's the staff that make a place safe and all the staff are excellent here.' A visitor to the home also told us, 'I am sure my relative is safe, I don't have any concerns at all.'

We looked at the recruitment records of three members of staff. They showed an effective recruitment system had been undertaken to ensure staff employed to work at the home were suitable.

Records showed that 100% of the staff had received training in the safeguarding of a vulnerable adult (a vulnerable adult is a person who may be unable to take care of themselves, or protect themselves from harm or from being exploited). This was to ensure the care staff would have a good understanding of the organisation's reporting procedures if they had any concerns for a person's safety or welfare.

We saw that staff had access to up to date policies and procedures. These included a whistle blowing and safeguarding adults policy. Staff told us they felt confident that they could initiate the whistle blowing policy without fear of recrimination.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. Whilst no applications had been submitted, the manager told us they had received training to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

We found that an on call system was in operation to ensure a member of the management team would be available at all times should an emergency situation arise.

Is the service effective?

Systems were in place to ensure that the individual needs of people could be identified prior to, or at the point of admission. People residing at the home and visitors to the home told us they were happy with the standard of care package and felt the service was effective in meeting people's individual needs and preferences.

Is the service caring?

We asked people if they were satisfied with the quality of care they received and if they felt their needs were being met. One person told us, 'I cannot fault it. I am very happy here." Another person said, 'All the staff are very caring, I like it here."

A person's relative told us, 'Its great here and any needs are provided. I don't have any concerns about dad's needs not being met.'

Throughout our inspection we observed the interactions between the staff and people residing at the home. We found staff responded to people's needs and requests in a sensitive, caring and compassionate manner which promoted their dignity and wellbeing at all times.

Is the service responsive?

We found that systems were in place to ensure that effective assessments could be performed to determine the holistic needs of people. Information had been used from people's relatives and professionals, such as social workers, so as to build a comprehensive picture of how people's needs could be met. We also found people's care planning documentation had been reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they were up to date.

Is the service well-led?

People told us they felt the service was well led by the management team and they felt the team were fully aware of their roles and responsibilities and what was expected of them.

Staff told us they received good support and direction from the management team within formal supervision sessions. Staff also told us they felt they could express their views and were actively involved in any developments within the home.

We found the manager was conducting annual satisfaction surveys which were designed to highlight the views of people who used the service. We also saw the results of the surveys were being used to make improvements to service provision.

Records showed people had been provided with the opportunity to attended residents meetings. These were being undertaken to encourage people to discuss and share their views about the quality of service provision and the development of the services within the home.

We also saw a suggestion box was made available in the foyer of the home. This provided a confidential facility for staff and visitors to the home to contact the manager and highlight any areas of service provision which could be improved.

We found that auditing procedures were in place to determine if the home's environment was fit for purpose. The provider may find it useful to note that communal bathrooms within the home would have benefited from an upgrade. Whilst they were clean they were somewhat tired in appearance and a bath side and tile required replacement to ensure effective cleaning could be performed. This issue was also highlighted by a person who was residing at the home as they told us, 'The care we get here is amazing but the bathrooms let it down a bit.'

We found that that staff spoke with people quietly and gently and that people were treated with dignity and respect.

We reviewed the care records of five people and found that each person had been fully assessed when they came to live at the home and that all the records contained comprehensive care plans and risk assessments which were appropriate to each individual's care needs.

We spoke with two people who lived at the home and with the relatives of two people. We also spoke with two members of staff, reviewed three staff files and inspected the provider's training records and policies and procedures file.

One person who lived at the home told us, 'I receive very good care. I am fully involved with my care plans. There are enough staff to look after us and plenty of activities and entertainment, although I don't often join in. The staff will take me to the shops if I want to go. The home is always clean."

We spoke with four staff who were all able to describe people's individual care needs and referred to information which we saw in people's care plans. We saw that care plans and risk assessments had been reviewed monthly.

Staff told us they would be happy to refer safeguarding concerns to external organisations if needed. We saw incidents involving people who use the service had been reported to the local authority and Police.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Staff members we spoke with confirmed they had submitted their documentation before starting work and delivering care.

Members of staff we spoke with said, 'Staffing is ok but sometimes if we're short of one person on a shift it can be a struggle.' The staff rotas we saw showed that staffing levels had been in line with the staff numbers identified for people currently living in the home.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. We saw completed surveys which the home had received and they were mostly positive.