Archived: The Lodge at Oakhill

Updated 8 November 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 28 September 2017 and was unannounced.

The inspection was undertaken by two Inspectors. Prior to the inspection we gathered all information available to us such as notifications and any information provided by the public. Notifications are information about specific events that the provider is required to send to us by law.

As part of our inspection we spoke with five people using the service, the registered manager, manager and five members of staff. We reviewed the care records for three people as well as other records relating to the running of the service such as safety and quality audits, complaints and incident records.

Updated 8 November 2017

The inspection took place on 28 September 2017 and was unannounced.

The service provides rehabilitation for up to 14 people who are aiming to live back in their own homes following a period of ill health. At the time of our inspection, nine people were using the service. There was a manager in day to day charge of the Lodge and a registered manager supporting them. 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.

We found that people were safe. The recruitment process for two members of staff didn’t fully meet the requirements of legislation. However the HR representative and registered manager told us that since these staff had been recruited, processes were more robust.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to ensure people’s safety and meet their needs. People told us call bells were answered quickly and staff were always available if needed. Staff were trained in and understood the processes for safeguarding vulnerable adults.

The service was effective at delivering rehabilitation programmes to help people regain independence in their homes. The service employed their own physiotherapists and occupation therapists and many support staff also had professional qualifications from their home countries. People gave very positive feedback about how well staff had supported them to achieve their aims.

Nobody at the Lodge was subject to a DoLS authorisation. However staff understood the Mental Capacity Act and we observed staff consulting with people during the day to make day to day decisions.

One of the aims of the service was to provide a ‘hotel like’ experience. Staff all understood this aim and we observed high standards in hospitality and care during our inspection. Two ‘hospitality assistants’ were employed in the role of ensuring people had sufficient to eat and drink and were able to engage in activities if they wished to. Staff were all kind and caring in their approach with people. People gave very positive feedback about staff and the care they received. People told us they enjoyed the food provided and that staff went to great lengths to ensure it met people’s individual needs and preferences. One person for example told us that staff had checked with them in relation to their cultural preferences for meals.

The service was responsive to people’s changing needs. Staff observed when a person’s needs had changed and acted promptly to address the issue. One person told us how a member of staff had noticed when a piece of equipment wasn’t working well for them and immediately sourced an alternative. People were highly complimentary about the service they received, however there was a process in place to manage complaints, should people feel the need to raise concerns. Where minor issues had been raised, for example in relation to food, it was clear that these were taken seriously and action taken to improve.

The service was well led. There was a manager in day to day charge of the Lodge and a registered manager overseeing the service. People told us the manager made time to see them each day and were always available if needed. There were system in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided and the service demonstrated a desire to continually improve.