Background to this inspection
Updated
20 October 2021
The inspection
This was a targeted inspection to check on a specific concern we had about the safe management of medicines.
Inspection team
This inspection was completed by two inspectors. The site visit of this inspection was undertaken by a medicines inspector. A second inspector supported this inspection remotely.
Service and service type
Lavender House and Primrose Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection
We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because the service is small, and people are often out, and we wanted to be sure there would be someone available to support this inspection.
What we did before the inspection
The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.
During the inspection
During the inspection we checked policies and records for managing medicines. We spoke to three members of staff and reviewed six people’s medicines administration records.
After the inspection
We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found.
Updated
20 October 2021
About the service:
Lavender House and Primrose Lodge are two residential care homes on the same site, registered to provide personal care for up to 11 people. At the time of the inspection there were 10 people living at the service.
People’s experience of using this service:
People received safe care. There were risk assessments in place and staff understood what measures were needed to reduce the likelihood of risks to people’s safety occurring.
Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and how to identify abuse. They felt confident in reporting concerns to the registered manager and knew they could report concerns to the local authority, police and CQC.
Medicines were managed safely. Medicine records were up to date. Medicine stock checks corresponded with the expected amounts.
We identified that the temperature in the medicines storage room in Primrose Lodge regularly exceeded the maximum recommended storage temperature of 25 degrees Celsius. The registered manager took action regarding this with immediate effect.
There were support protocols in place for people with epilepsy. These were stored in people’s support plans, as well as in their bedrooms and in their day bags. This meant staff had access to protocols in the event of a seizure and could take prompt action to support the person.
Staff were well trained to meet people’s needs. Specific training had been sourced when people’s needs changed. For example, training in catheter care.
People’s needs were assessed, and person-centred support plans were created. People also had health plans, documenting their health-related support needs. Some of the information was duplicated in the different plans. This meant ensuring the information remained up to date throughout the plans was not always consistent.
Staff knew people and their needs well. Staff spoke with fondness about the people they support, and we observed kind and caring interactions.
People chose how and where they wanted to spend their time and people were supported to form friendships between the two houses.
The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were applied to the care planning, with consideration for consent and capacity throughout. There were mental capacity assessments in place for specific decisions, such as having the flu vaccination and to consent to invasive health checks.
People were provided with information in an accessible format and the service worked in accordance with the principles of the Accessible Information Standard 2016.
The service met the characteristics of Good in all areas. More information is in the full report.
Rating at last inspection: The previous inspection took place in March 2016 and the service was rated as Good in all areas and Good overall.
Why we inspected: This was a scheduled comprehensive inspection.
Follow up: We will monitor all intelligence received about the service, to inform when the next inspection should take place.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk