Archived: Carlisle Lodge

Updated 13 February 2015

The inspection was undertaken on 7 and 16 July 2014 . We spoke with ten people living at the home who were able to tell us about their view and experiences, four visitors, one registered nurse, three care staff, the registered manager and the activities co-coordinator. We observed care and support provided to people in shared living areas and also looked at the kitchen and some people’s bedrooms. We looked at a range of records about people’s care and how the home was managed. Records seen included, three care plans along with supporting care documentation and risk assessments. A selection of charts recording daily care, support and monitoring of people’s needs were reviewed along with three staff recruitment files some further recruitment documentation was sent from head office, complaint and audit records.

The inspection team consisted of an inspector and an expert-by-experience, who had experience of older people’s care services. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

Before our inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the home that included notifications received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR) and previous inspection reports before the inspection. The PIR was information given to us by the provider. This enabled us to ensure we were addressing potential areas of concern. Following the inspection we spoke with two visiting health care professionals to gain their views on the service.

We last visited the service on 31 January 2014 where no concerns were identified.

This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?’

The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.

Updated 13 February 2015

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, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was an unannounced inspection, which was undertaken on the 7 and 16 July 2014.

Carlisle Lodge Nursing Home is registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for up to 20 older people. It provides 18 single rooms and one room that can be used for people wishing to share. At the time of the inspection 15 people were living in the service. People living In the home had general nursing needs associated with older age and some had been placed for respite care. The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

People and their relatives told us they felt they were safe living at Carlisle Lodge Nursing Home. Staff undertook safeguarding vulnerable adults, and Mental Capacity Act 2005 training. They were able to tell us what they would do if they had any concerns and the registered manager had suitable understanding of associated legislation.

Care plans contained individual risk assessments in order to keep people safe. Staff told us they felt there was enough staff on duty each day to look after people and to provide individual time. There was a workforce who enjoyed working at the home.

Staff told us they were able to complete further training appropriate to their role if they wished to, and the provider would support them in this. However, staff told us that most of the training was self-directed and was completed in their own time. We saw that staff supervision was provided although the frequency of this had reduced over the past year. All staff told us that they felt supported and that their views were listened to and responded to by the registered manager and provider.

People were encouraged or supported to make their own decisions about their daily life and their food. We saw there was a weekly menu which gave people choice. People who did not like the choice on the menu could ask for an alternative.

Care records and discussion with visiting professionals showed us that people had access to other health care professionals as and when required. Staff followed guidance from these professionals and sought additional advice when necessary.

People were cared for by kind and caring staff. Staff knew people well and responded to them individually. One person said, “Everyone is very kind and helpful.” People and relatives told us that they were involved in their care and changes and reviews were fully discussed.

There was a variety of activity and interaction taking place in the home for people. The activity co-ordinator knew everyone well and facilitated activity and entertainment within and outside of the home. Links with the local school and church provided additional interest for people living in the home. Visitors told us that they were warmly welcomed and felt they could come to the home at any reasonable time. People had access to the community, friends and relatives.

People were given information on how to make a complaint. People using the service, their relatives and staff told us that they were able to raise a compliant easily and they felt that it would be dealt with effectively.

Regular audits and a review of satisfaction with the use of questionnaires were undertaken. The provider also visited the home on a regular basis to review the quality of the service. This showed us that the provider checked that the service provided the care and treatment in an appropriate and safe way and that where necessary, improvements were made.