Cresta Lodge

Updated 13 February 2018

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 comprehensive inspection was carried out by one inspector on 20 December 2017 and was unannounced.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the contents of notifications received by the service.

People using the service were unable to communicate their views about the care they received. We carried out observations to assess their experiences throughout our inspection. In addition we spoke with three relatives, three care staff, the registered manager, the providers and the training manager. Following our inspection we received a letter from the local doctors surgery about their experience of working with the service.

We reviewed five care records, three staff personnel files and records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 13 February 2018

Cresta Lodge is a residential care home registered to provide support to 27 people, some of whom were living with dementia. At the time of inspection there were 22 people using the service.

At the last inspection on 17 and 20 July 2015 the service was rated Good overall. In effective the service was rated ‘requires improvement’ and was breaching Regulation 11 Need for Consent of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The service provided us with an action plan stating how they intended to improve in this area. At this inspection we found that the necessary improvements had been made to comply with this regulation. The service was rated good in all five domains and maintained a rating of good overall.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS.) 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’s relatives told us they felt their relative was safe living in the service and that staff made people feel safe. Risks to people were appropriately planned for and managed. Medicines were stored, managed and administered safely.

Checks were carried out to ensure that the environment and equipment remained safe. The service was clean and measures were in place to limit the risk of the spread of infection.

People’s relatives told us there were enough suitably knowledgeable staff to provide people with the care they required promptly. A health professional wrote to us and said they felt the staff were competent and well trained.

Staff had received appropriate training and support to carry out their role effectively. Staff received appropriate supervision which helped them develop in their role. People received appropriate support to maintain healthy nutrition and hydration.

People’s relatives told us staff were kind to people and respected their right to privacy. Relatives told us staff supported people to remain independent and our observations supported this.

Relatives told us they were encouraged to feed back on the service and participate in meetings to shape the future of the service.

People received personalised care that met their individual needs and preferences. People and their relatives were actively involved in the planning of their care. They were supported to access meaningful activities and follow their individual interests.

The home was decorated in a way which helped people living with dementia find their way to key areas such as the bathroom and their bedroom. There was an accessible garden available to people and ample sources of engagement available for people to access independently.

The registered manager and the providers created a culture of openness and transparency within the service. Staff told us that the managers and providers were visible and led by example. Our observations supported this. Relatives told us they knew how to complain and felt they would be listened to.

There was a robust quality assurance system in place and shortfalls identified were promptly acted on to improve the service. There were plans in place to develop the service and the knowledge and skills of the staff team. Plans were in place to continually update and refresh the decoration of the home in line with people’s preferences. People were being consulted about what activities and outings they would like in 2018.

The service worked well with other agencies such as Norfolk County Council to ensure they stayed up to date with the latest policies, procedures and best practice.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.