Byron Lodge

Updated 2 February 2019

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.

This inspection took place on 8 and 9 January 2019 and the first day was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors from the Commission and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

The provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR) prior to our inspection. The PIR 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. We reviewed other information we held about the service including notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

We contacted agencies such as Manchester local authority and Healthwatch to find out what information they held about the service. Healthwatch is an organisation responsible for ensuring the voice of users of health and care services are heard by those commissioning, delivering and regulating services. We received no information from the local authority. Healthwatch held no information about this service at this time.

During the inspection we spoke with eight people who were living at the home. We spoke with four support workers, the registered manager, a deputy manager and the area operations manager. We reviewed records relating to the care people were receiving; these included four care plans and risk assessments, daily records and medication administration records. We also looked at records relating to the management of the home, including four staff recruitment files, staff training and supervision, equipment maintenance, quality monitoring and policies and procedures.

Updated 2 February 2019

This inspection took place on 8 and 9 January 2019 and the first day was unannounced.

Byron Lodge was previously inspected in October 2017. We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These related to providing safe care and treatment and good governance. At this inspection we found sufficient improvements had been made and the service was meeting the regulations.

Byron Lodge is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care for up to 14 people. There are 12 self-contained apartments and two en-suite bedrooms. At the time of the inspection 14 people were living at the service.

There was a registered manager was in post who was supported by two deputy managers. 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.

Byron Lodge provided care and support that was safe. During our inspection we found people were relaxed and settled in their surroundings. Risks to people were identified and measures implemented to mitigate these risks. The provider had made the required improvements since the last inspection to help ensure medicines were managed and stored safely.

There was sufficient and adequately trained staff to support people safely. All relevant pre-employment checks had been completed, to ensure they were appropriate to work with vulnerable people. The provider had suitable systems in place to protect people from abuse including accidents and incidents.

People were protected from the risk of infection because suitable arrangements were in place to ensure hygiene standards were maintained. The home was visibly clean and free from unpleasant smells. Staff were knowledgeable about and demonstrated good infection control practices.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The provider had submitted appropriate applications for the deprivation of liberty safeguards to the local authority.

Staff were competent and had adequate professional support to enable them to support people safely and effectively. Staff received an induction, training considered mandatory by the provider and shadowed experienced colleagues prior to working unsupervised. Staff had regular supervisions and annual appraisals. People could participate in giving feedback for staff’s appraisals.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met effectively. Where possible, people were supported to shop and prepare their own meals. The service acted proactively to ensure people maintained a balanced diet and that they received relevant health and medical attention as required. This helped to ensure people achieved a good quality of life and wellbeing.

People were supported in a friendly and respectful way. People, relatives and staff got on well and staff were aware of people’s personalities and behaviours. Staff responded promptly when people asked for help and were seen to support people in a patient and unhurried manner. People, relatives and visitors were complimentary about the staff and their caring attitude.

People and their relatives were involved in the decision-making regarding the care and support provided. Where required, people could use advocates to help them understand and be involved in their care and support.

The care home operated within a diverse and multicultural community and had systems in place to ensure people’s equality and diversity needs were recognised.

Care plans contained detailed and adequate person-centred information to guide staff to provide personalised care. These plans were reviewed regularly.

People engaged in activities and events that were meaningful and personalised. During our inspection, we observed activities taking place. Daily planners in people’s care records and photographs evidenced people’s participation in a range of events within the home and in the community.

Concerns and complaints were managed effectively with a clear process in place. Records demonstrated people and their relatives knew how to make a complaint. There had been one complaint made since our last inspection in October 2017. This had been dealt with appropriately.

The registered manager was visible within the service and known to the people supported. Staff were equally complimentary about the registered manager and spoke about their ‘open door’ policy. People and their relatives were very pleased with the service. They felt very involved in the care provided and were always kept informed and consulted with.

Staff had appropriate mechanisms to support them in carrying out their jobs. These included staff meetings and policies and procedures.

The provider complied with the legal requirement to display its most recent rating within the home and on their website.