This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 5 June 2017. We also went back to the home on 12 June 2017. Notice of the second day of inspection was given as we needed to make sure members of the management team would be present in order that we could explore further some of the evidence we obtained on the first day of inspection.Auburn Lodge Residential Home is a care home for up to nine older people. If people require nursing care district nurses attend to them at the home. The home is located in the sea side town of Selsey, West Sussex. It provides both permanent and respite placements. At the time of our inspection nine people lived at the home. This included one person who was staying for respite. People’s needs varied. Some people were quite independent and only needed minimal assistance whilst others required assistance with all aspects of their care.
During our inspection the registered manager (who is also the provider) was on leave. 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. In the registered managers absence support to the home was provided by an assistant manager, a trainee manager and a senior care supervisor.
This was the first inspection of the home since it registered with CQC in June 2015. Although generally people told us that they were satisfied with the service provided we found that the registered manager had not ensured the quality and safety of the service was monitored or that action was taken to improve service delivery. Quality assurance systems did not cover all aspects of the service and as a result did not identify the shortfalls we found at the inspection. Assessment and care planning was not robust and did not ensure that people’s needs were managed effectively and responsively. Risks to people’s safety and welfare were not always assessed and action was not always taken to mitigate potential risks. When people sustained injuries that required treatment at hospital the registered manager had not notified us of these in line with her legal responsibilities. Although staff sought peoples consent when delivering care formal consent processes were not being used. The home was not following the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
Despite the above issues, people who lived at the home said that staff were kind and caring and as a result positive relationships had been formed that enhanced their sense of wellbeing. People said that they were treated with respect and dignity. We observed interactions by staff that were genuine, warm, positive, respectful and friendly and people told us this was the norm. People said that the registered manager was approachable and sought their views, listened and acted upon them.
Staffing levels were sufficient to provide safe care. However people commented that they would like more opportunities for staff to spend time talking with them and socialising. Robust recruitment checks were completed to ensure staff were safe to support people.
People said that in the main they were happy with the choice of activities on offer and that they were supported to maintain links with people who were important to them.
Staff were suitably trained and skilled and received training relevant to the needs of people who lived at the home. Staff were supported and received group and one to one supervision. Staff said that the registered manager was a good role model.
People said that they were happy with the medical care and attention they received. People were supported to access health professionals that included GP’s, district nurses, chiropodists and opticians.
People said that the food at the home was good and that their dietary needs were met. There were a variety of choices available to people at all mealtimes. Home cooked meals and cakes were provided by a chef who based the menu on people’s preferences.
Equipment was available in sufficient quantities and used where needed to ensure that people were moved safely and staff practiced safe moving and handling techniques.
Information of what to do in the event of needing to make a complaint was displayed in the home. During our visit we observed staff assessing if people were happy as part of everyday routines that were taking place.