We carried out a review of the data available to us about Tate Lodge on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Tate Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
Tate Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in ‘care homes’ receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.
The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC 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.
This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 18 July 2018. The last inspection was in January 2016 when the service was rated as Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
We found that staff’s suitability to work with vulnerable adults at the service had been checked prior to employment. For instance, previous employer references had been sought and a criminal conviction check undertaken.
Staff had received training which equipped them with the knowledge and skills to ensure people received adequate support. Staff had also received more specific training to meet the needs of people living with mental health illnesses.
Medication was managed safely and was administered by staff who were competent to do so.
Appropriate arrangements were in place for checking the environment was safe. For example, health and safety audits were completed on a regular basis and accidents and incidents were reported and recorded appropriately.
Quality assurance processes were in place to seek the views of people using the service and their relatives.
Staff sought consent from people before providing support. Staff we spoke with understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure people consented to the care they received. The MCA is legislation which protects the powers of people to make their own decisions.
People were involved in their support and there was evidence in their support plans to show that they had been consulted about decisions. Support plans contained detailed information to identify people’s requirements and preferences in relation to their care. Appropriate risk assessments were recorded which helped to keep people safe.
There was no set daily routine at the service and people had a choice in what activities they participated in each day. We saw evidence that people’s hobbies and interests were recorded and catered for.
Most people living at the service had one to one support. People were assigned a ‘key support worker and co-support worker’ to support them with activities in the local community. People devised a weekly activity planner which ensured they participated in the activities they enjoyed doing. People were supported by their support workers with attending external health care appointments which helped to promote people’s wellbeing.
We asked people about how they thought the service was managed and their feedback was positive.
We carried out an unannounced inspection of Tate Lodge on 2 December 2015.
Tate Lodge is a residential service offering support for eight adults with learning disabilities and mental health needs. There are eight en-suite bedrooms and communal areas spread over two floors. The service is located close to local shops and amenities.
At the time of the inspection eight people were living in the home.
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.
Prior to the inspection we had received information of concern from the registered manager regarding the unsafe behaviour of one of the people living at the home. We saw that the registered manager had taken appropriate steps to minimise the risk and keep people safe. All of the people that we spoke with told us they felt safe living in the home.
Staff were trained in recognised techniques to diffuse and de-escalate situations that might become unsafe. We saw that staff used their training to safely manage a situation with one person living in the home.
We looked at the care files for three people and found that some of the pre-admission information relating to risk was not sufficiently detailed. We spoke to the registered manager about this and were assured that they would request more detailed pre-admission information in future. We saw from care files that risk had been regularly reviewed once people had started living in the home and that they had been actively involved in the process.
The registered manager completed a series of safety checks for the home on a regular basis. People had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEP) in place to show staff how to support people out of the building in an emergency.
Staff were deployed in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of the people living in the home.
Medicines were stored and administered safely by appropriately trained staff.
Staff were trained in a range of relevant subjects including learning disability, challenging behaviour and mental health.
Staff communicated effectively with people living in the home, relatives, professionals and each other.
The service generally operated in accordance with the principles of the MCA and DoLS, but we saw one example where an assessment indicated that the person did not have capacity in relation to the locked door policy.
We saw that people were supported to maintain their physical and mental health in conjunction with a range of healthcare professionals. This included access to general medical services in the local community and specialist services as required.
We had limited opportunity to directly observe people, but throughout the inspection we saw that people were treated with kindness and respect by staff. Staff knew the people that lived in the home well and were able to describe their care and support needs in detail. Staff took time to discuss things with people and responded to their views. They spoke in a gentle and re-assuring manner when people showed signs of anxiety.
The people living in the home were given choice and control over their care and support. Where choices created risk the situation was clearly explained before a decision was made.
Each person living in the home had a person-centred plan which was regularly reviewed. These plans recorded how people wanted to be supported and were responsive to people’s changing needs. People were supported to follow their interests by staff.
People were encouraged to share their experience of the service and to complain if necessary. A copy of the complaints procedure was displayed in the foyer. None of the other people that we spoke with said that they had ever had cause to raise a formal complaint.
All of the staff and professionals that we spoke with told us that the home was well managed and that communications were open and honest.
Managers were actively involved with people living in the home and staff throughout the inspection process. They demonstrated an awareness of the culture of the home and the current issues for each person living there.
Staff had a clear understanding of their roles which reflected the culture, visions and values of the home. They were motivated to provide high quality care and support and to promote people’s independence.
The home operated a robust process for monitoring quality. The approach included the completion of weekly checks by the registered or deputy manager covering a number of quality indicators such as; compliments, complaints, incidents and accidents. A quarterly audit was completed by an operations manager with an additional audit undertaken each year by a member of the quality team.