Archived: Silver Lodge

Updated 28 December 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 7 December 2017 and was unannounced. This meant the people living at Silver Lodge Care Home and the staff who worked there did not know we were coming. The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors 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 care service.

Before our inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included correspondence we had received and notifications submitted by the service. A notification must be sent to the Care Quality Commission every time a significant incident has taken place, for example, where a person who uses the service experiences a serious injury.

We did not ask the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR) this was because we had changed our inspection dates and so we had not requested the form to be completed .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 gathered information from the local authority and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. This information was reviewed and used to assist with our inspection.

At the time of our inspection there were 27 people living at the service. We spoke with five people and three of their relatives to obtain their views of the support provided.

We spoke with 11 members of staff, which included the registered manager, the deputy manager, four care staff, the cook, a member of domestic staff, maintenance staff, the administrator and the activity coordinator.

We spent time observing care in the communal areas and used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We looked around different areas of the service; the communal areas, bathrooms, toilets and with their permission, some people’s rooms.

We spent time looking at records, which included three people's care records, four people’s Medicine Administration Records (MAR), three staff records and other records relating to the management of the home, such as training records and quality assurance audits and reports.

Updated 28 December 2017

Silver Lodge is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as 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.

Silver Lodge has 32 beds providing accommodation and personal care to older people with a variety of support needs including those living with dementia. It is located in its own grounds in Chapeltown, Sheffield, close to transport links.

At the time of our inspection 27 people were using the service.

This inspection took place on 7 December 2017 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and registered provider did not know we would be visiting.

At the last inspection on 29 September 2016 we found the registered provider had not ensured the premises were properly maintained. This was a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, in regard to Regulation 15: Premises and equipment. The registered provider sent us a report of the actions they would take to meet the legal requirements of these regulations. We checked whether this regulation had been met as part of this inspection. We found that sufficient action had been taken to meet the requirements of the regulation.

People we spoke with told us they felt ‘safe’ and did not express any worries or concerns.

Relatives we spoke with felt their family member was in a safe place and did not have any concerns about their family member’s safety.

Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if an allegation was made or they suspected abuse.

We found systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely so their health was looked after.

Staff recruitment procedures ensured people’s safety was promoted.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs safely and effectively.

We did not find any concerns about the cleanliness of the service. This was supported by people and relatives we spoke with.

Staff received regular training and support so they were skilled and competent to carry out their role.

People had access to a range of health care professionals to help maintain their health. A varied diet was provided, which took into account dietary needs and preferences so people’s health was promoted and choices could be respected.

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.

People were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was protected. People and relatives we spoke with made positive comments about the care provided by staff.

We found people’s care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly and in response to any change in needs.

We saw people participated in a range of daily activities which were meaningful and promoted independence.

People and relatives said they could speak with the registered manager or staff if they had any worries or concerns and they would be listened to.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to.

Staff, people living at Silver Lodge and their relatives said the registered manager was approachable and supportive, and communication was good within the service.