Archived: Lyndhurst

Lyndhurst provides care and accommodation for up to five people. At the time of the inspection five people were living at the service. There was a registered manager 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.

Lyndhurst is part of the Royal Mencap Society group which provides services to people with a learning disability. The service is made up of one large detached property on the outskirts of Penzance.

The premises were well maintained, pleasant and roomy. There was a living room and a large kitchen and dining area allowing people choice about where and with whom they spent their time. One person had a large en-suite bedroom on the ground floor and there were an additional four rooms which shared bathroom facilities. People had chosen the décor of their rooms in line with their personal preferences. The garden was large, flat and pleasant and people spent time in it when the weather was fine.

Recruitment practices helped ensure staff working in the service were appropriate to work in the care sector. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. They were clear about how to report any concerns and were confident that any allegations made would be appropriately investigated to help ensure people were protected. There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and support plans included clear information about how people preferred to be supported. There were clear guidelines for staff on how they could support people to help them avoid becoming distressed. When people did become anxious the care plans clearly informed staff about what actions to take. This helped ensure staff took a consistent approach to supporting people.

Families and other professionals were involved in regular discussions about how best to support people. The registered manager told us they were continually assessing people's needs to check these were still being met.

People's individual abilities and strengths were recognised and respected. People received as much support as they needed but were encouraged to be independent wherever possible. Staff took a flexible approach to support, according to the needs of the individual. People approached staff for assistance and reassurance as they needed it and staff responded with understanding and good humour.

The registered manager had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and how to make sure people who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves, had their legal rights protected.

Information was presented in easy to read formats to aid people's understanding and facilitate meaningful involvement.

The registered manager took an active role in the home. There was a key worker system in place. Key workers had oversight of each individual's plan of care. There were clear lines of accountability and responsibility within the management structure. This helped to ensure the smooth and efficient running of the service. Staff told us they had confidence in the registered manager and were happy working at the service.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

Is the service caring? We found the service was caring. During our inspection we spoke with two people being supported by the service. We asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them. Feedback from people was positive, for example, 'the staff are lovely. Very caring' and 'I feel I can talk to staff about anything'. When speaking with staff it was clear they genuinely cared for the people they supported.

Is the service responsive? We concluded that the service provided to people at Lyndhurst was responsive. People had regular reviews of their care plans and told us they could approach staff with any issues. People told us they knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a coherent way.

Is the service safe? From the information gathered during our inspection we concluded the service was safe. People told us they felt safe. Procedures for gaining consent were robust and staff understood how to ensure people were adequately consulted and had provided their consent to support and treatment. In the event that a person was considered unable to provide informed consent under the confines of the Mental Capacity Act additional consent procedures were initiated. People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected. Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Is the service effective? We found the service was effective. People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing and review of their plans of care. People said that their care plans were up-to-date and reflected their current needs.

Is the service well-led? We concluded the service was well led. The service had a quality assurance system, and records showed problems and opportunities to change things for the better were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

People we spoke with told us they were encouraged to choose how they spent their time and had free choice about areas of their life such as when they went to bed and what choice of meals they had. We saw people coming and going from various activities during the day. People were happy to spend time socialising together, talking with staff and visitors to the home or spending time in their own rooms. We saw people moved around the home with no restrictions.

People who lived at the home were safe and their health and welfare needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff who were appropriately qualified, skilled, experienced and of good character.

Care records and other confidential documents in the home were stored securely. Records were accessible and orderly.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People who used the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

There were not enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

People were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care because accurate and appropriate records had not been maintained.