We carried out a review of the data available to us about Lugano Residence for the Elderly on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Lugano Residence for the Elderly, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Risk assessments had been carried out on people using services and staff belonging to higher risk groups and actions had been taken to reduce the risks.
The service used isolation, cohorting and zoning effectively.
Infection Prevention and Control Policy was regularly updated, including a Covid-19 IPC Policy.
Staff had all completed infection prevention and control training, and this included the correct procedures for using PPE.
The service was clean throughout. There were appropriate procedures to ensure infection control risks were minimised.
The registered manager had contingency plans in place to prepare for an outbreak and manage any staff absences effectively.
The registered manager was very proud of their staff team and people we spoke with were very positive about living at the service. One person said, “We are all thoroughly spoilt here.”
We found the following examples of good practice.
• The care home had adapted a room to include a visitor pod. Visitors were able to access their side of the screened pod without the need to enter the building.
• The home had a COVID-19 Marshall who greeted all visitors at the main entrance and ensured that the home's visitor procedures were adhered to.
• All staff members were wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).
• Although not needed at the home up to the date of inspection, the COVID -19 outbreak policy stated symptomatic people would be isolated in single rooms.
• Staff and people were tested weekly and more frequently when necessary, and a record of these tests was seen.
• PPE equipment stations were seen at key points around the home.
• Staff took breaks on a rota system and no more than two members of staff were permitted into the staff room at any one time.
• Key staff, including the activities co-ordinator wore face coverings which enabled their mouths to be visible.
• A bedroom had been re-configured as the dedicated room for testing and for external visitors.
• The home had a dedicated COVID -19 Marshall who co-ordinated all of the testing.
• Cleaning staff had cleaning schedules loaded on to a tablet and they used this to record completion of tasks.
• Cleaning schedules were monitored by management regularly.
• Staff generally worked with the same group of people which contributed to minimising the spread of infection and enabled relationships to be built.
• Regular IPC audits took place and we saw that any concerns had been addressed in a timely manner.
Lugano Residence for the Elderly is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. It is situated is Buckhurst Hill, Essex.
Lugano Residence for the Elderly provides accommodation and support for up to 27 people who may need assistance with personal care and may have care needs associated with living with dementia. There were 26 people living at the service at the time of our inspection. The home does not provide nursing care.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
At our last inspection in January 2016 the overall rating of this service was Good. At this inspection we found the service to be good and continuously working towards a high standard of care as to ensure positive outcomes for people using the service.
The service was safe. The service carried out appropriate recruitment checks before staff commenced employment. There were sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of people and keep them safe from potential harm or abuse. The service assessed and reviewed people’s health and wellbeing to minimise risk to health. The service had a good management and monitoring structure in place for the management of people’s medicines.
The service was effective. People were cared for and supported by staff who had received training to support people to meet their needs. The manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The service supported people to eat and drink enough which ensured people maintained a balanced diet.
The service was caring. Staff cared for people in an empathetic and kind manner. Staff had a good understanding of people’s preferences of care. Staff always worked hard to promote people’s independence through encouraging and supporting people to make informed decisions.
The service was responsive. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. The service undertook regular care plans reviews and changes were made when needed. People were supported to follow their interests and participate in social activities. The service responded to complaints received in a timely manner.
The service was well led. The service had systems in place to monitor and provide good care and these were reviewed on a regular basis. The manager told us that current systems and processes where being updated and improved.
Lugano Rest Home for the Elderly provides accommodation and support for up to 27 people who may need assistance with personal care and may have care needs associated with living with dementia. There were 27 people living at the service at the time of our inspection. The home does not provide nursing care.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
The service provided good care and support to people enabling them to live fulfilled and meaningful lives. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect by staff who knew them well. The registered manager ensured staff had an understanding of people’s support needs and had the skills and knowledge to meet them.
People were cared for by staff that had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been made. There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet the needs of people. Staffing levels were calculated according to people’s needs and were flexible to respond to people’s changing needs. Staff told us that they were well supported to carry out their work and had received regular training and supervision.
Staff were trained in how to protect people from abuse and harm. They knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to raise an alert if they had any concerns. Medicines were stored and administered in a safe way.
We found there were policies in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff were aware of what these meant and the implications for people living at the service. Where people had been deprived of their liberty, applications had been submitted to the local authority for a DoLS authorisation.
People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing and had access to, and received support from, other health care professionals. People were provided with sufficient food and drink to meet their needs and were provided with a choice of meals.
People’s bedrooms were personalised to reflect their individual tastes and personalities.
There was a programme of social activities available. People were supported and encouraged to pursue leisure activities in the community and to join in activities provided at the home.
People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint. Complaints were dealt with efficiently and quickly.
There were quality assurance systems in place which assessed and monitored the quality of the service. These included audits on medication management, incidents and accidents, health and safety and seeking the views of people, relatives and staff.
We observed that there were daily activities which were arranged to meet the needs of each person who used the service. We heard no concerns or complaints about the quality of the care provided by the staff. We spoke with two staff who said that the work was, "Very rewarding" and they were, "Relaxed and happy".
During our visit we spoke with six people who lived at the home and two relatives who were visiting. They told us that people were well cared for and very happy. One person told us, "Staff are lovely. They are always happy and smiling and we have laughs with them." One of the relatives told us, "This is a lovely place. I can't fault it."
People told us that they had been involved in the admission and assessment process and had been given information when they arrived at the home. They told us that they had signed their care plans and relatives had been provided with copies of them but we saw from the records we looked at that this had not always been the case.
People told us that they were involved in their care planning and confirmed that they were present at their care plan reviews, confirming that they were able to influence their care.
We saw that there were robust recruitment processes to ensure the suitability of the staff for the roles for which they had been employed.
We saw that personal records were kept securely and could be accessed easily when required.
A family member told us that they had looked round Lugano prior to accepting a placement for their relative and said they chose Lugano because it 'seemed more homely compared to other homes seen.'
The family member told us that they visited regularly and the manager and staff were always welcoming and helpful. They said that they were always consulted about their relative's care and they reviewed their relative's care plan monthly.
Those people we spoke with said that the meals provided were good, with the exception of one person who felt that vegetarian meals could be more imaginative. Everybody spoke highly of the staff and considered staff to be helpful and supportive.
One person told us 'The staff are very nice and attentive.'
A healthcare professional visiting the service told us that they were very impressed with Lugano and found it to be a very pleasant and welcoming home, the staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs and that they were pleased with the support provided by staff to their patient.
Relatives told us that the manager was very approachable and that they felt able to raise any concerns if it were necessary and that they were confident that they would be dealt with appropriately.