Langdale House

We found the following examples of good practice.

• The premises were clean, hygienic and tidy. There was a daily routine of cleaning where each member of staff was given responsibilities for cleaning.

• There was handwashing and hand sanitising points throughout the service which were used by staff and people who lived at the service.

• All staff were wearing face masks. Staff had a good understanding of personal protective equipment (PPE) and when it needed to be used.

• There was a thorough screening process for visitors where the temperature is taken and oxygen levels were taken and a screening questionnaire completed.

• There were signs and updates throughout the service in an easy read format. These displayed information on handwashing routines and how to wear PPE correctly.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Langdale House is a residential care home for up to eight people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection eight people were using the service. The service had spacious living areas and was set over two floors. The service was set in a residential area with easy access to the local community. 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.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Systems were in place to manage risks to people's safety. Potential risks to people were assessed and managed appropriately. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed in order to reduce the risk of them reoccurring. People received their medicines safely and in line with their prescriptions. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff. Staff had been recruited appropriately and had received relevant training so that they were able to support people with their individual care and support needs. The environment was clean, homely and well-maintained. There was a contingency plan in place to help ensure people's care would not be disrupted in the event of an emergency.

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's nutritional needs were met and a choice of food and drinks were available. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals and any guidance provided by them was followed. People's needs were assessed prior to them moving into the service to ensure the staff had the skills to support them.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. People's rights to privacy were respected by the staff who supported them and their dignity was maintained. Staff knew people well and were aware of people's individual communication styles. People were encouraged to take part in daily living tasks and encouraged to develop their independent living skills. People were supported to maintain relationships with those who were important to them.

People and their relatives were involved in decisions about the care. The service responded to people's changing needs in a timely manner and care plans were regularly reviewed. People had access to a variety of activities both within the community and when spending time at home. There was a complaints policy in place which was displayed in an easy read format. Complaints received had been responded to in line with the provider’s policy.

People who used the service and staff were confident about approaching the registered manager and provider if they needed to. Effective auditing systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. The views of people and their relatives on the quality of the service were sought. There was a positive culture throughout the service. Staff felt supported in their roles and shared a common ethos and values.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Langdale House is registered to provide accommodation for up to 8 people with learning disabilities. There were 8 people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

Accommodation at the home is provided over two floors, which can be accessed by stairs.

Prior to our inspection we reviewed information from notifications.

At the time of our inspection there was no registered manager, however there was a new manager in post who was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

Risk assessments were clear and staff understood individual risks to people. Staff engaged in safe practice and supported people to maintain their own safety. Staff understood procedures to follow where there may be concerns about people’s safety.

Accidents and incidents were clearly recorded and analysed to ensure people’s safety was being maintained.

Staffing levels were appropriate to meet people’s needs and we saw people received one to one support according to their care plans.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) legislation and how this impacted upon people’s care.

Teamwork was evident and staff said they felt supported to carry out their role. There were regular opportunities for training and development, meetings and individual supervision.

People’s health needs were monitored and referrals to other professionals were made where necessary.

People were cared for by staff who engaged respectfully with them; people’s privacy and dignity was promoted and people were consulted and included within all aspects of their care and support.

Care records were person centred although some information within personal care plans was not always dated to show how current the information was or whether it had been reviewed.

Activities were based upon people’s individual needs and preferences. Where people needed structure and routine, staff supported them to ensure this was consistently in place.

People felt supported to complain if they were unhappy about any aspect of their care and there was clear evidence people’s concerns had been taken seriously and acted upon.

The new manager was visible in the service and outlined clear priorities for running the home. Quality assurance systems were in place and audits were regularly carried out.