Archived: Lonsdale Midlands - Brierley Lane

51-53 Brierley Lane is a residential home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to 12 adults or older people with learning disabilities and physical disabilities. Some people living at the service are currently living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 10 people living at the service.

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.

Quality assurance systems did not always identify some areas for improvement within the service. Records were not always in place, up to date and accurate around people’s care needs and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were cared for by a staff team who felt supported and were committed to their roles. People’s views about the service they received were proactively sought and improvements made where required.

People were supported by a staff team who understood how to protect them from potential abuse. People were protected from risks such as accident and injury. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had been recruited safely for their roles. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

People were cared for by a staff team who had the skills required to support them effectively. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People received sufficient amounts of food and drink. People were supported to maintain their day to day health.

People were supported by care staff who were kind and caring towards them. People’s dignity was protected. They were supported to make choices and to maintain their independence.

People received care and support that met their needs and preferences. People were involved in making decisions about their care they received and their needs were regularly reviewed. People were supported to access leisure opportunities and to pursue personal interests.

People’s feedback about the service was sought. Any concerns or complaints were addressed appropriately and improvements made where necessary.

51-53 Brierley Lane is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to a maximum of 12 people with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were 12 people across two separate buildings. The buildings were identified by people as ‘number 51’ and ‘number 53.’

There was a registered manager 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. However, as the registered manager was unavailable on the day of the inspection, the deputy manager answered any questions we asked and provided the documents we needed to view.

Risks were not always managed in order to keep people safe. Systems to ensure that people could call for staff assistance from their room were not used. Where people received support with medication, accurate records of what medication is available was not kept.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had undergone recruitment checks to ensure they were safe to work. Staff understood how to recognise and report concerns about abuse.

Staff received training to support them in their role but reported that this did not equip them to support people effectively. Staff had access to supervision with their manager to receive the support and guidance they required.

People did not always have their rights upheld in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff were not fully aware of who required a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard and why.

People were supported to choose what meals they would like on the menu and had access to healthcare support where required.

Staff were caring and ensured people were involved in their care and were treated with dignity. The deputy manager understood how to access advocacy services for people.

People were involved in the assessment and review of their care. People were supported by staff that knew their likes and dislikes and had access to a variety of activities.

People knew how to complain and complaints made had been investigated fully by the registered manager to people’s satisfaction.

Quality assurance audits were completed but these had not identified the issues we raised during the inspection. People were asked for their feedback on the service via provider questionnaires.

People spoke positively about the leadership at the home and staff felt supported by the registered manager.

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service well led?'

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with four people using the service and one of their relatives, four care staff supporting them and looking at six care records.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Relatives of people who used the service told us they felt their relatives were safe. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported.

We found that the provider had a policy and processes in place to ensure that people rights were protected in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We found that staff had training in how to protect people's rights and gain their consent. We found that although these procedures were followed it was not always documented.

Staff knew about risk management plans and we saw that they supported people in line with those plans. This meant that people were supported with their care needs in a safe way.

The home worked well with other professionals to ensure that people's health care needs were met in a safe way.

The registered manager ensured that staff rotas were planned in advance to maintain the staffing numbers required to provide care in a safe way. The staff had the training and support required to ensure that people's needs were met.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and checks made on the service. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them and family members were involved. People told us they were involved in the care planning and reviews of care. We saw that care plans were regularly updated.

Where people had complex needs that required the input of specialist health care services, assessments had been made by the appropriate professionals. Their recommendations were carried out by the care staff.

Care staff received the appropriate training to meet the diverse needs of people who used the service.

Visitors confirmed that they could visit when they wanted to and spend time alone in privacy if they wished

Is the service caring?

People were supported by staff that were kind and caring. We saw that care staff gave people encouragement and were patient with them. One relative told us, 'When I visit my relative I can see that the staff are genuinely caring, it's not just a job'.

People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People had the opportunity to engage in a range of different activities each day.

People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns. One relative told us, 'They are responsive to my relative's changing needs'.

The home had regular meetings with people who used the service which were recorded. The meetings took on board comments made to improve the service and acted on suggestions.

Where care staff had noticed people's changing needs, their care plans had been updated to reflect this.

Is the service well led?

The service had quality assurance and risk management systems in place. Records seen by us indicated that shortfalls in the service were addressed.

The staff were well supported to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to carry out the care people needed. Care staff were given feedback about their performance so improvements could be made where needed.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and understood the quality assurance and risk management systems. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality of care. Staff told us the home was well organised and they felt supported by their manager.

The home was made up of two bungalows situated next door to each other. There were five people living in the first bungalow and six people living in the second bungalow at the time of our inspection.

We found that people's consent to care was sought. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, appropriate steps were taken to make decisions in their best interests and to protect their rights.

People received care which supported their needs. We saw staff delivering care in a way reflected in people's care plans.

People received enough food and drinks throughout the day, including healthy snacks. One person told us, 'Food's alright'.

Staff were skilled in delivering care to people. People's needs were responded to promptly and there were enough staff to support people in their chosen activities. A visitor told us, 'Staff are always able to give us answers to questions'.

The home had a complaints procedure in place, which was accessible to people with learning disabilities. A relative told us, 'I know there's a complaints system, but I've not had cause to use it'.

We saw that staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible doing household chores the people could do for themselves and enjoyed.

The staff told us that they had worked there for many years and that it was a good place to work. They enjoyed working with the people who lived there. They also said they had good support from the service managers and felt able to talk to them if they had any concerns.

We spoke to two relatives of the people living there. One said they usually visited unannounced and the care standards were brilliant, the cleanliness was first class. The home was a happy one. Everyone was treated as individuals and with dignity. The staff really cared for the people they support. The family were always kept informed of any issues. Their relative was always very clean and smartly dressed.

The second family were very happy with the standard of care provided.They felt that they were well looked after. They visited often and enjoyed the visits. They said that the home was beautiful.