We carried out a review of the data available to us about Landau Lodge on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Landau Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
About the service:
Landau Lodge is a care home providing personal care for up to 10 people who have a learning disability and/or autism. The service consists of a main building with en-suite bedrooms and four individual bungalows. At the time of our inspection nine people lived at the service.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service:
We received positive views from relatives about the support provided to people.
Care and support was tailored to each person's needs and preferences. People and their relatives were fully involved in developing and updating their planned care. People were supported with activities and interests to suit them. Staff knew people’s likes and dislikes well.
People were supported with their communication needs and staff demonstrated effective skills in communication. Recruitment checks were in place to ensure staff were suitable to work at the service. Staff had received training and support to enable them to carry out their role.
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 received their medicines safely and on time and their health was well managed. Staff had positive links with health care professionals which promoted people’s wellbeing.
Relatives and staff told us the registered manager and management team were approachable. All feedback was used to make continuous improvements to the service. The provider had systems in place to safeguard people from abuse and staff demonstrated an awareness of safety and how to minimise risks.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the Care Quality Commission (CQC) website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 24 July 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection in October 2014 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People who lived at the home were content and felt safe by staff who looked after them. We observed staff providing support for people throughout our inspection visit. We found they were kind and patient and this was confirmed by people we spoke with. We asked one person if they felt safe and they said, “Yes of course.”
Records looked at and talking with staff and the registered manager we found staff had been recruited safely, appropriately trained and supported. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with complex needs.
We observed staff providing support to people throughout our inspection visit. They were kind, respectful and patient. Staff provided one to one support and we saw good interaction between staff and people who lived at Landau lodge.
People who lived at Landau Lodge had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met. The staff responded promptly when people had experienced health problems. This was confirmed by records we checked and talking with people.
Staff knew people they supported and provided a personalised service. Care plans identified care and support people required. They contained personal information that supported staff to help each individual meet their aims and be as independent as possible. We found care records were informative about care people had received.
Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided.
We looked around the building and found it had been maintained, was clean and hygienic and a safe place for people to live. We found equipment had been serviced and maintained as required.
We found medication procedures at Landau Lodge were safe. Staff responsible for the administration had the competency and training required. One staff member said, “Only trained staff would ever give out medication.” We found medicines were safely kept with appropriate arrangements for storing in place.
People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.
People who lived at Landau Lodge came in and out of the kitchen with staff when they chose to. They were encouraged to support with shopping and preparing meals in accordance with their care plan. One person who lived at the home we spoke with said, “I like cooking.”
The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of care at Landau Lodge. These included regular audits of the service, annual surveys and staff meetings to seek the views of people about the quality of care at the home. ‘House meetings’ which involved people who lived at the home were held on a regular basis. We confirmed this by looking at minutes taken of meetings.
Landau Lodge provides personal care and support for up to 10 people who have a learning disability. Although registered for up to 10 people the registered provider has chosen to accommodate eight people to allow for more individual space. The service consists of a main building with four en-suite bedrooms and four individual bungalows. The service is located to the east of Hull city centre.
There was a registered manager in post at the service. 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.
People who used the service told us they trusted the staff and felt safe. The registered provider had procedures in place for staff to follow to report any abuse they may witness or become aware of. Staff were able to describe to us how they would keep people safe from harm and what they would do if they witnessed any abuse. They had received training about different types of abuse and how to recognise and report these.
The registered provider’s recruitment systems ensured, as far as was practicable, people who used the service were not exposed to staff who had been barred from working with vulnerable adults. There was enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs.
Staff received training relevant to their role and this was updated as required. They had also undertaken training about specific needs of the people who used the service; for example, autism and how support people with behaviours which may challenge the service and others.
We saw people were involved with any decisions about the running of the service and their day to day choices. We saw and heard the staff had a good rapport with people who used the service and understood their needs. Where people had been assessed as needing support with complex decisions and choices the person who acted on their behalf had been identified. Meetings had been held which included health care professionals, the person’s representative and the staff at the home to ensure any decisions made on behalf of the person were in their best interest.
Care was provided in an enabling environment and people were supported to be as independent as possible. We saw staff supporting people out in the local community to shop and people told us they went on outings and holidays.
The registered manager undertook regular audits of the care the service provided and made improvements where needed. People who used the service, relatives and staff were all encouraged to have a say about how the service was run. The registered manager used all compliments and complaints as an opportunity to develop the service and improve.
Records indicated how much support people required to meet their nutritional needs. People told us they liked the meals provided and they had choices and alternatives. Comments included, 'It's very nice; you can choose what you want. I want to lose weight and the staff have been helping me.'
We found medicines were managed well, which ensured people received their medicines as prescribed. However, stock control and the return system used in the service meant there were some medicines wasted each month.
We found there were sufficient staff to support people with their daily needs. People told us they liked the staff that supported them. We found staff had access to training and support to ensure they were confident in supporting the people who used the service.
We found the service had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and obtain people's views. This included audits, surveys and regular meetings.
People spoken with said they felt safe in their home and would tell staff if they had any concerns.
We found the facilities in the service were modern and well maintained. All areas of the bungalows and the main building were homely and personalised. Comments included, 'I really like it here, it's much better than the last place I was in.'
We found the service recruited staff in line with their policy and procedure, which ensured appropriate checks were in place before the start of employment. Staff received training appropriate for their role and were provided with formal supervision meetings to check their progress and ongoing training needs.
We found that each person who used the service was provided with an easy read handbook that detailed who to speak to if they were unhappy. People spoken with named specific staff they would speak to if they were unhappy or had any concerns.