Updated 14 February 2019
The inspection:
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team:
This inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Service and service type:
Magnolia Lodge is a care home (without nursing). The service is registered for up to 10 people and there were nine people living in the home at the time of the inspection. People in the home receive accommodation and personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. There was 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.
Notice of inspection:
The inspection was unannounced.
What we did:
Before the inspection we looked at all the information we had collected about the service. The service had sent us notifications about injuries and safeguarding investigations. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law. We looked at the 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.
During our inspection we observed care and support provided to people. We spoke with five people using the service, one visiting relative and seven staff including the manager.
We looked at a range of records including three people’s care plans and records that were used by staff to monitor their care. We also looked at duty rosters, menus and records used to measure the quality of the services that included health and safety audits. We also reviewed accidents and incidents and complaints.
Following the inspection visit we received requested information including training and supervision records, survey results and team meeting minutes. We also received written feedback from two relatives and four health/social care professionals including the local safeguarding team.