We carried out a review of the data available to us about Lansdowne House - Leicester 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 Lansdowne House - Leicester, you can give feedback on this service.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People felt safe with staff from the service. Care plans and risk assessments provided guidance for staff to follow. Staff understood how to protect people from the risk of harm and understood potential signs of abuse. People and relatives were involved in assessments of potential risks to safety and in identifying measures to keep them safe.
Staff went through a recruitment process so that the provider only employed suitable staff. People received their prescribed medicines when required. People were protected from the risk of infections through staff working practices. People had enough staff to meet their needs. Staff undertook training that supported them to have the knowledge and skills to do their job well and effectively meet people’s needs.
People were provided with care and support that ensured they had good nutrition and hydration. They had access to healthcare that maintained their health and wellbeing. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests.
Staff knew people well. People had developed positive relationships with staff which helped to ensure good communication and support. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged people to be as independent as possible.
People or their representatives were involved and consulted when making changes to how their support was provided. Staff knew and understood the needs of the people using the service and care was provided based on their assessed needs. Staff were responsive to changes in people's needs to ensure people received timely help to maintain their health and well-being.
People knew how to raise any concerns or make a complaint. The provider had a policy and procedure which involved investigation and solutions to put things right. This provided information about how these would be managed and responded to.
Systems were in place to monitor the quality of care and support people experienced through quality assurance systems and processes to drive improvements in the service, though the system needed to be more thorough.
People and staff spoke positively about the management and leadership of the service. People said staff were very friendly and caring, and they had good relationships with them. The service worked in partnership with external agencies to ensure people achieved good outcomes from their care and support.
Rating at last inspection:
The last rating for this service was good. The inspection report for this inspection was published in July 2017.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating .
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
A registered manager was in place. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Risk assessments were in place to protect people from risks to their health and welfare, though some more were needed to cover all assessed issues. Staff recruitment checks were in place to protect people from receiving personal care from unsuitable staff.
People and relatives we spoke with told us they thought the service ensured that people received safe personal care from staff. Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and understood their responsibilities in this area.
We saw that medicines had been, in the main, supplied safely and on time, to protect people’s health needs.
Staff had received training to ensure they had skills and knowledge to meet people's needs, though training was needed on some issues.
Staff did not all understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to allow, as much as possible, people to have effective choices about how they lived their lives. Assessments of people's capacity to make decisions were detailed to determine whether they needed extra protections in place to keep them safe.
People and relatives we spoke with all told us that staff were friendly, kind, positive and caring. They told us they had been involved in making decisions about how and what personal care was needed to meet their needs.
Care plans were individual to the people using the service to ensure that their needs were met.
People and relatives told us they would tell staff or management if they had any concerns, and they were confident these would be properly followed up.
People were satisfied with how the care they had been provided with. Staff felt they had been, in the main, supported in their work by the management of the service.
Policies set out that when a safeguarding incident occurred management needed to take appropriate and action by referring it to the relevant safeguarding agency. We saw evidence that incidents of this nature had been reported to us, as legally required.
Notifications of concern had been reported to us, as legally required, to enable us to consider whether we needed to carry out an early inspection of the service. Management had carried out audits in order to check that the service was meeting people's needs and to ensure people were provided with a quality service.
A registered manager was in place. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People and their relatives we spoke with said they thought the agency ensured that people received safe personal care. Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and staff understood their responsibilities in this area.
Risk assessments were not always fully detailed to assist staff are to support people safely.
People told us that they received their medicines on time which protected their health needs.
Staff had not always been safety recruited to ensure they were appropriate to supply personal care to people.
Staff had training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to be able to meet people's needs, though more specialist training on meeting people’s individual needs was not fully in place.
Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to allow, as much as possible, people to have effective choice about how they lived their lives. However, there was no assessment process in place to determine if people had capacity to make decisions about their lives.
People or their relatives told us that people had been assisted to eat and drink and everyone told us they thought the food prepared by staff was well prepared and tasty.
Staff had an awareness of people's health care needs, so they were in a position to refer to health care professionals if needed.
People and their relatives we spoke with told us that staff were very friendly, kind, positive and caring.
People, and their relatives, were involved in making decisions about how personal care was to be provided.
Care plans were individual to the people using the service, with information about people's social care needs.
People or their relatives told us they would tell staff or management if they had any complaints and were confident any issues would be properly followed up.
People and their relatives were generally satisfied with how the agency was run by the registered manager and his management staff.
Management carried out audits and checks to ensure the agency was running properly. However, audits did not always include the detailed checking of all issues or action evidenced to provide a quality service.
We saw that people's needs were assessed, and care and support plans were in place, which were supported by risk assessments. This meant people receive support in a way that meets their needs and promotes their safety. People's records were stored securely within the offices based at the extra care housing schemes. People we spoke with told us they had a copy of their care plan and were aware that staff completed daily records about the care provided.
We found that there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, and make improvements where required.
People who used the service had their rights and experiences respected and they were involved in decisions about their own care. We found that the provider delivered care in a person centered manner that protected people from abuse and ensured their care needs were met.