Spring Lodge provides accommodation and personal care for up to 20 older people, some living with dementia. There were 20 people in the service when we inspected on 6 April 2016. This was an unannounced inspection. 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.
People were at the heart of the service and received care that was personalised to them and met their needs and wishes. People told us how staff went the extra mile to make sure that they were happy. Staff were compassionate, attentive and caring in their interactions with people,
Feedback from people and relatives about the staff and management team was consistent and extremely positive. They were delighted with the kindness and thoughtfulness of staff, which exceeded their expectations of how they would be cared for and supported. The atmosphere in the service was warm and welcoming and people, relatives and visitors all emphasised how the service had a ‘good feeling.’
Procedures were in place which safeguarded the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood the various types of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to and were very clear that they would have no hesitation in reporting concerns. They were confident that these would be dealt with appropriately
People presented as relaxed and at ease in their surroundings and told us that they felt safe. Staff knew how to minimise risks and provide people with safe care. Procedures and processes provided guidance to staff on how to ensure the safety of the people who used the service.
People were provided with their medicines when they needed them and in a safe manner. People were prompted, encouraged and reassured as they took their medicines and given the time they needed.
There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and this was closely monitored and reviewed in consultation with the people living at the service and with the staff. Recruitment processes checked the suitability of staff to work in the service.
People, relatives and others told us how staff showed empathy and understanding. Staff showed genuine interest in people’s lives and knew them well. They understood people’s preferred routines, likes and dislikes and what mattered to them. People told us that they felt that their choices, independence, privacy and dignity was promoted and respected
People were provided with personalised care and support which was planned to meet their individual needs. People felt staff listened to what they said and their views were important when their care was planned and reviewed. The service was committed to ensuring that staff took the time to find out about people’s life history and what was important to them.
Staff were well trained and supported to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff consistently received targeted group and individual support to continually learn and develop. This development was promoted as an integral part of everyday life so people, relatives and others also understood the importance of ongoing learning. The focus on the importance of skills and knowledge gave staff the tools they needed to deliver a high standard of care and support.
People’s nutritional needs were assessed and met. Professional advice and support was obtained for people when needed. People were offered meals that were suitable for their individual dietary needs and met their preferences.
People were supported to see, when needed, health and social care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. The service proactively engaged with these professionals and acted on their recommendations and guidance in people’s best interests.
The management team and staff understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). For people who were assessed as not having capacity, records showed that their advocates or families and healthcare professionals were involved in making decisions in their best interests.
There was an open and transparent culture in the service. A complaints procedure was in place. People’s comments, concerns and complaints were listened to and addressed in a timely manner. People, relatives, visitors and staff were confident that any concerns raised would be taken seriously and dealt with appropriately by the management team.
The provider’s Charter of Values states, “Every person matters and will be treated equally, compassionately and with the utmost respect and dignity” Staff practice demonstrated this approach was being adhered to and they were clear on their roles, responsibilities and how they contributed towards the provider’s vision and values.
The management team had clear oversight of how things were being run and were aware of the individual needs of all of the people living at the service. The service had an extremely robust quality assurance system which involved staff as well as the management team. Shortfalls were identified and addressed promptly.
There was a strong emphasis on continually striving to improve. The service placed high importance on supporting its staff to be updated with best practice guidelines. This enabled them to provide a high quality of care and support.