The inspection took place on 13 September 2016 and was unannounced. The home was previously inspected in November 2013 and the service was meeting the regulations we looked at.Ascot Lodge Nursing Home is a 50 bed nursing home offering care and support to older people living with dementia. It is situated within easy reach from the public transport to town centre and other amenities. At the time of our inspection there were 47 people using the service.
The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.
Staff we spoke were knowledgeable about the process they would follow if they suspected abuse. They told us they received training in this area and would be able to recognise abuse. Staff also told us they knew how to use the whistle blowing policy and would raise anything that was a concern to them.
We looked at the systems in place to manage people’s medicines and found this was done in a safe way. We looked at storage and records of medicine and found these were accurate. The temperatures were taken of the room and fridge which was used to store medicines requiring cool. However, we did see that on some days these had not been recorded.
We found the provider had a safe and effective system in place for employing new staff. We looked at six staff files and found them to contain pre-employment checks and other appropriate information.
Each person had a dependency tool in their care records which identified their level of need. For example, low, medium, high or very high dependency. Through our observations and speaking with people who used the service, their relatives and staff, we found there were enough staff available to meet people’s needs.
Risks associated with people’s care were identified and appropriate measures put in place to reduce the risk occurring.
We spoke with staff about the training they received and they told us this was worthwhile and covered subjects appropriate to their role. Training provided was mainly completed by eLearning; however certain subjects such as manual handling were completed face to face.
The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff offered people choices and respected their decisions.
We observed meal times and found that people were involved in deciding what they preferred to eat and drink. Snacks and drinks were available throughout the day. We saw smoothies and snack plates were available to boost people’s nutritional intake where required.
People had access to healthcare professionals when required. We looked at care records and saw professionals such as speech and language therapists, and physiotherapists had been involved in their care.
Throughout our inspection we found staff to be caring and considerate when interacting with people. They showed respect by knocking on doors before entering and speaking quietly and confidentially with people.
Relatives we spoke with told us that the home had several social events where entertainers came in. They told us that birthdays were celebrated. On the day of our inspection it was a warm day and people enjoyed sitting outside. However, there was no other social stimulation taking place.
The provider had a complaints procedure which was displayed in the main entrance of the home. People we spoke with and their relatives had no concerns about the service and were very complimentary.
There was evidence of good leadership at all levels. Staff knew their roles and responsibilities well and looked to senior staff for advice and guidance when required.
We saw audits were completed to ensure the quality of the service was maintained. Audits had action plans to ensure any issues were identified and resolved.
There was evidence that people who used the service had a voice and were given the opportunity to contribute ideas to the service.