Archived: Fritham Lodge

Updated 17 May 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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.

The inspection took place on 11 March 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector, and a specialist advisor in the care of people with mental health needs.

Before the inspection, we reviewed information we held about the home including previous inspection reports and notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

We spoke with two people living at the home. We also spoke with the registered manager, the assistant area director, and six staff members. We looked at care plans and associated records for four people, four recruitment files, accidents and incidents records, policies and procedures, minutes of staff meetings and quality assurance records. We observed how staff interacted with people whilst supporting them with a range of activities in the home.

We last inspected Fritham Lodge on 12 December 2013, when no concerns were identified.

Updated 17 May 2016

We carried out this inspection on 11 March 2016. The inspection was unannounced. Fritham Lodge provides accommodation and support for up to twelve people with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection there were eleven people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

People felt safe living at Fritham Lodge and people were very much at the heart of the service. The risks to people were minimized through risk assessments. There were plans in place for foreseeable emergencies.

Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working at Fritham Lodge to make sure they were of good character and had the necessary skills. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse. There were enough staff to keep people safe.

People were supported to take their medicines safely from suitably trained staff. People received varied meals including a choice of fresh food and drinks. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes and went out of their way to provide people with what they wanted.

Staff received regular support and one to one sessions of supervision to discuss areas of development. They completed a wide range of training and felt it supported them in their job role. New staff completed an induction programme before being permitted to work unsupervised.

Staff sought consent from people before providing care and support. The ability of people to make decisions was assessed in line with legal requirements to ensure their rights were protected and their liberty was not restricted unlawfully.

People were cared for with kindness, compassion and sensitivity. Care plans provided comprehensive information about how people wished to receive care and support. This helped ensure people received personalised care in a way that met their individual needs.

The provider had employed someone in the home to be an ‘expert auditor’ which involved them travelling to other homes within the group to improve the quality of service for people living there.

People were supported and encouraged to make choices and had access to a wide range of activities. Staff knew what was important to people and encouraged them to be as independent as possible. ‘Residents meetings’ and surveys allowed people to provide feedback, which was used to improve the service.

A complaints procedure was in place. There were appropriate management arrangements in place and staff felt supported. Regular audits of the service were carried out to assess and monitor the quality of the service.