Archived: White Lodge Residential Home

We carried out a follow up inspection on 20 August 2013 to review the progress the provider had made and we found that the provider was compliant in these areas.

On the day we inspected there were 23 people living at the home, some of whom had memory impairment and/or a physical health problem. During our inspection we spoke with three people living in the service and two members of staff.

We saw that the home was clean and well maintained. We observed people participating in a group physical activity in the lounge with the activities coordinator.

We saw that risk assessments had been completed for all people living at this home to ensure their safety when they were being cared for. People had their care discussed and agreed with them.

On the day we inspected there were 23 people living at the home and during our inspection we spoke with eight staff members, six people who use the service and two relatives.

We saw that the home was clean and well maintained. We observed people doing activities in their rooms, for example one person was listening to music and another doing puzzles. People had personalised their rooms with their own possessions including their own furniture.

We saw that people had their care discussed and agreed with them and families were actively involved in care planning.

During the lunchtime we used our SOFI (Short Observational Framework for Inspection) tool to help us see what people's experiences at mealtimes were. Staff were observed assisting people in a calm, friendly and polite manner. People were given choices about the food they would like to eat and were given reassurance and support needed.

People chose how to occupy themselves in the service. We observed that people were spending time in the communal areas watching television and interacting with each other in the dining room. During our inspection we observed people spending time in their bedrooms listening to their choice of music and reading. We observed staff spending the majority of their time with people who used the service. They frequently checked on them to ensure they were alright when spending time on their own.

During the inspection we were unable to evidence that the provider responded appropriately to any allegation of abuse as the manager did not have access to the safeguarding file. There was not any evidence that risks were being regularly monitored and there was not any evidence that procedures were put in place to minimise risks occuring in the future. This meant that people who used the service were not protected from abuse and did not experience care that met their needs.