Parkside Lodge

Parkside Lodge is a residential care home providing personal care to people living with mental health conditions. There were 9 people living at the home at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 12 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. 'Right support, right care, right culture' is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

At the time of the inspection, the location did not care or support for anyone with a learning disability or an autistic person. However, we assessed the care provision under Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture, as it is registered as a specialist service for this population group.

Right Support: Risk assessments that were put in place encouraged people to live independent lives. Positive risks were taken to enable people to access the community and in some cases manage their own medication with the support of staff.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Right Care: Peoples wishes and choices were reflected in their support plans. The home took steps to engage with people so that their voices were heard.

Right Culture: The registered manager spoke passionately about the values of the home; communication, honesty and teamwork. Staff that we spoke to understand the home’s “challenge charter” which encouraged them to speak up about concerns. Both people and staff spoke positively of the environment and we witnessed managers taking steps to promote this.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (report published: 16 January 2018).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern.

Please see the Safe and Well-led sections of this full report.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

The overall rating for the service has remained Good based on the findings of this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Parkside Lodge on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

Parkside Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Parkside Lodge provides care with accommodation for up to twelve people with mental health conditions in one building. At the time of our inspection visit there were seven people using the service. At the last inspection, in November 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection the overall rating for the service remained as Good.

People continued to receive safe care and the risks to people’s safety were continually assessed and reviewed. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff in place to support people.

People's medicines continued to be managed safely and effectively. We saw learning from incidents took place both in house and from the provider's other services.

Staff received a detailed induction and training programme and new training had been accessed to support staff to understand specific mental health conditions people may be affected by. Refresher training had been booked for those staff that needed it.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People were supported to lead a healthy lifestyle and where needed to lose or to gain weight. People’s day to day health needs were met by the staff.

People and staff enjoyed each other’s company and staff treated people with respect, dignity and compassion. There was a calm and positive atmosphere within the home, with people encouraged to do as much for themselves as possible. People’s independence was encouraged. People were provided with information about health services and their own care needs in a format they could understand. There were no restrictions on people’s friends or relatives visiting them.

People’s care records were personalised which enabled staff to support people in line with their personal preferences. We discussed with the registered manager that care records could be improved further around showing the goals and outcomes that people were working towards more effectively. Effective systems were in place to manage any complaints that the provider may receive.

The service was well-led. The registered manager was very enthusiastic about improving the service and making it a more recovery focussed model of care. The registered manager was well liked by all and they carried out their role enthusiastically and professionally. The service was focussing on developing the knowledge and skills of the staff team and there was a positive ethos about making changes which the staff told us about. People and staff were encouraged to contribute to the development of the service and effective auditing processes were in place to monitor the quality of the service.

We carried out this inspection to check that improvements had been made in respect of shortfalls in assessing and monitoring the quality of the service identified on our previous visit on 7 May 2014.

During our inspection on 13 January 2015, we spent time speaking with the area manager, the new home manager, the deputy manager and care staff and reviewing records and quality documentation.

We found that the service had recruited a new manager and that this person was about to start the registration process with us. We found that the action we had told the provider to take had been taken. For example, the area manager had conducted bi-monthly audits and fire drills had been carried out at least every three months. Staff told us that the period in which the home did not have a permanent manager had been handled well and that they had felt supported in the interim by the area manager and the manager of a nearby home.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask:-

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

We found shortfalls in safety procedures. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to this.

People told us that they felt safe. One person said, 'I feel very safe living here, the staff know me and look after me very well.'

People were cared for in an environment that was clean and hygienic.

At the time of the inspection, there were no people in the home subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were protected from abuse because staff had received appropriate training to help them identify and prevent abuse from occurring.

We saw evidence that the staff supported people to access professional healthcare in the community when necessary.

The service had information available to staff on health conditions that people who lived at the home may need additional support with, for example epileptic seizures.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the care that was delivered and their needs were met.

It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they (staff) had a good understanding of the people's care and support needs and that they knew them well. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people who lived at the home.

We saw evidence that one person who lived at the home had improved health and wellbeing since moving into the service.

Is the service caring?

We saw that care workers were patient and supportive to people in their care.

People told us they were able to do things at their own pace and were not rushed. Our observations confirmed this. One person told us, 'I love living here; staff look after me and help me when I need them to.'

We observed people being taken and supported to health appointments in the community.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed and reviewed regularly. We also noted that any changes to behaviour were further assessed and actions taken to access professional healthcare support.

We found shortfalls in the monitoring of the quality of service provision and have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to this.

We spoke to a healthcare professional who told us that the staff always work in partnership to help them further support the individual they were working with.

Is the service well-led?

We found that there was no registered manager and the provider was in the process of recruiting to the post. In the interim, the deputy manager was responsible, but the service was being monitored by the area manager and further supported by a manager from another service.

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and seemed passionate about caring for the people who lived at the home.

Staff had received appropriate training, including NVQ qualifications in health and social care and other mandatory training.

When asked, staff knew who to contact if they had a problem.

We found people received the care they needed. People made positive comments about the care received and told us they were happy with the support provided to them. For example, one person remarked, 'I'm happy here.' Another person said, 'You've got an allocated key worker, but all the staff help you.' We observed there was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the home.

We saw the home was clean, free from odours. There were arrangements in place to minimise the risk of cross infection.

Staff were safely recruited. People told us they were happy with the staff who worked with them and we observed staff acting in a courteous and professional manner. One person remarked about staff, 'The staff are excellent, you cannot get a better staff.'

There were arrangements for obtaining and acting on people's views. There were regular meetings with the people living here, where their views were sought. Regular questionnaire surveys were also sent to people living at the home. One person told us, 'If you've got a problem the door's always open.'