Background to this inspection
Updated
23 September 2020
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.
This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place. As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are conducting a thematic review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes.
This inspection took place on 24 August 2020 and was announced. The service was selected to take part in this thematic review which is seeking to identify examples of good practice in infection prevention and control.
Updated
23 September 2020
This inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector and an expert by experience on 18 December 2018 and was unannounced.
Astbury 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 regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is situated within the Great Sutton area near Ellesmere Port. The home offers accommodation and support for up to 41 people. At the time of our visit there were 40 people living in Astbury Lodge.
The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
At the last inspection, the service was rated good. At this inspection we found the service remained good as it met all the requirements of the fundamental standards.
The registered provider continued to have safe recruitment processes in place. All staff had completed an induction when they commenced their employment and had undertaken essential training necessary for their role. Staff received regular support through supervision and team meetings.
Staff had received training in safeguarding and were able to describe what abuse may look like. They felt confident to raise any concerns and thought any concerns would be listened to and acted upon promptly. The registered provider had safeguarding policies and procedures in place.
Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of in accordance with best practice guidelines. The registered provider had policies and procedures in place. Medicine administration records (MARs) were fully completed and regularly audited for accuracy. Staff had received training in medicines management and had their competency assessed.
People had their needs assessed before they moved into the home and this information was used to create individual care plans. These plans included clear guidance for staff to follow to ensure people’s individual needs were met. People’s needs that related to age, disability, religion or other protected characteristics were considered throughout the assessment and care planning process. Care plans were reviewed and updated when any changes occurred.
People had their food and drinks needs assessed. Clear guidance was available for staff to follow to meet these needs. People spoke positively about the food and drink available to them. The mealtime experience observed at the home was positive.
People, relatives, staff and health care professionals spoke positively about the staff and the management team. People described being supported by kind and caring staff.
Staff had developed positive relationships with people who lived at the home. People told us their privacy and dignity was respected and their independence promoted. We observed positive interactions between staff and people living at the home throughout our inspection.
People living at the home had opportunities to engage in activities of their choice and the management team had developed positive relationships with organisations within the local community.
The home was clean and had all required health and safety checks and documentation in place. Equipment was regularly serviced and fire checks were regularly undertaken within the home. Individual emergency evacuation plans were in place for people.
The Care Quality Commission as required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and report on what we found. We saw that the registered provider had guidance available for staff in relation to the MCA. Staff had undertaken training and demonstrated a basic understanding of this. The registered provider had made appropriate applications for the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Care records reviewed included mental capacity assessments and best interest meetings.
Quality assurance systems were in place that were consistently completed. Areas for development and improvement had been identified and actions promptly taken to address these. Accidents and incidents were analysed to identify trends and patterns within the home.
The registered provider had a clear complaints policy that people and their relatives knew how to access. People told us they felt confident to raise any concerns they had and felt they would be promptly addressed.
Policies and procedures were available for staff to offer them guidance within their role and employment. These were regularly reviewed and updated.
The registered provider had displayed their ratings from the previous inspection in line with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.