We carried out a review of the data available to us about Blaydon Lodge 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 Blaydon Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ The registered manager had identified, assessed and mitigated all COVID-19 related risks to people, staff and visitors. The registered manager had enhanced the provider’s quality and assurance systems to make sure all aspects of infection prevention and control were monitored and regularly reviewed.
¿ The registered manager had an effective monitoring system in place to check that the service was following government guidance and the provider's own policies.
¿ Staff were confident and knowledgeable about government guidance and what visitors were required to do prior to entering the service. Professional visitors were required to provide a negative lateral flow test result from that day. Visiting professionals and staff provided evidence of their vaccination status to the registered manager before entering the service.
¿ People were encouraged and supported to leave the service to access the local community. Relatives were able to visit their family members if needed during the person’s short-term respite stay.
¿ Staff wore appropriate PPE and had access to this throughout the home. Staff had received additional training during the pandemic about correct PPE usage and infection prevention and control from the provider.
Blaydon Lodge 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. Blaydon Lodge provides short break and respite care for up to two people at any one time. At the time of this inspection one person was staying at the service.
The care service had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
The service had a registered manager. 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. People, relatives and staff described the registered manager as supportive and approachable. They told us since the registered manager had started there had been significant improvements made to the service.
Relatives and staff enthusiastically described the exceptional care provided at the service. Relatives described the service as a “top quality service”, “absolutely the best place we have ever been to” and “fantastic”. They told us the staff team were “fantastic” and were extremely caring towards their family members. We heard about numerous occasions when staff went ‘above and beyond’ to ensure people’s, sometimes with very complex needs, were supported to achieve their choices and aspirations. Empowering people to communicate and express their needs was an area of strength within the service, as staff had a deep understanding of people’s preferred communication methods. This had developed over the years due to a stable and consistent staff team who had people’s wellbeing at heart.
The registered manager led by example and offered a high level of support to staff and relatives, often supporting relatives with matters outside of their management role.
The registered manager and staff team were extremely committed and dedicated to providing excellent care in line with the service’s values of meaningful and personalised care. People were central to how the service operated. The service was flexible to suit changes in people’s needs and individual family circumstances.
The provider continually evaluated the service to drive through sustained improvement for the benefit of people using the service.
Relatives and staff told us the service was safe.
Medicines were administered safely with accurate records available to show which medicines people had received.
There were enough staff on duty to provide personalised care. The number of staff deployed was flexible and based on the needs of people staying at the service at the time.
There were effective recruitment systems to ensure new staff were recruited safely.
Staff had a very good understanding of the procedures to keep people safe. They also knew how to report concerns but had no concerns about safety. Previous safeguarding concerns had been dealt with effectively including making referrals to the local authority safeguarding team and investigating concerns thoroughly.
Staff told us they received extremely good support. The provider was proactive in ensuring staff completed training relevant to the needs of people staying at the service. This included specialist training to enable staff to care for people with particular needs.
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.
Staff supported people to meet their nutritional and healthcare needs. This included people with specialist feeding requirements. Health professionals had been consulted to provide specialist advice and guidance to staff where needed.
People had personalised care plans which clearly described how they wanted to be cared for so that their individual needs and preferences were met.
Relatives only had extremely positive feedback and praise for the service. They felt able to speak to the registered manager or any of the staff team at any time if they needed help and assistance.
The provider had a formal approach for investigating complaints. There had been no complaints received about the service since we last inspected.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 13 November 2015.
We last inspected Blaydon Lodge in September 2014. At that inspection we found the service was meeting the legal requirements in force at the time.
Blaydon Lodge is a two bedded resource that provides a short break service to adults with learning disabilities/autism and some behaviours that may challenge.
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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were protected as staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse. Staff were aware of the whistle blowing procedure which was in place to report concerns and poor practice.
Staff had received training and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Best Interest Decision Making, where decisions were made on behalf of people who were unable to make decisions themselves. Other appropriate training was provided and staff were supervised and supported.
People received their medicines in a safe and timely way. People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Staff followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the care they needed.
Menus were individual and staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes and special diets that were required. Activities and outings were provided according to people’s preferences.
Staff knew the people they were supporting well. Care was provided with patience and kindness and people’s privacy and dignity were respected. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care.
People we spoke with said they knew how to complain but they hadn’t needed to. The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided. There was regular consultation with people and/ or family members and their views were used to improve the service.
Staff and relatives said the management team were approachable. Communication was effective ensuring people and their relatives were kept up to date about any changes in people’s care and support needs and the running of the service.
' Is the service safe?
' Is the service effective?
' Is the service caring?
' Is the service responsive?
' Is the service well-led?
Below is a summary of what we found.
Is the service safe?
Relatives we spoke with told us they were confident that their family members were safe at the home. We found safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. One relative told us, 'He is very safe and well looked after there; if he wasn't happy, he wouldn't go; I have no cause for concern.' Another relative said, 'I'm confident that he is safe there. He is well cared for and I have every confidence in the staff ' it's reassuring.'
People were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment at the home had been well maintained and serviced regularly, therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk. There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living at the home and a member of the management team was available on call in case of emergencies. The building was clean, well maintained and secure and other appropriate measures were in place to ensure the security of the premises. One relative told us, "The staff are well trained and well versed in his care. I feel he's safe and they know exactly what they are doing and are very mindful of his needs and don't panic.'
Is the service effective?
People told us that they were happy with the care that was delivered and their needs were met. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of the people's care and support needs and that they knew them well. We looked at how staff were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living at the home. One relative told us, "They have good staff who know what they are doing. The continuity of their staff is a big thing; they know the people they look after and if there are any problems, they sort it.' Another relative commented, 'The staff and Lee (registered manager) do listen to you. I'm very positive about the place and he loves going there. It's a nice change for him and I get some respite. It's as good for him as it is for me.'
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People told us they were able to do things at their own pace and were not rushed. Our observations confirmed this. We saw staff interacted well with people, were attentive and gave people information in a way that was appropriate to their needs. One relative told us, 'They are caring and well trained; they seem to have a lot of knowledge, they are relaxed and always have plenty of time for people.'
Is the service responsive?
Support plans (care records) for people were reviewed before people came to stay at the service, to make sure that the information was correct and up to date. Where people's needs had changed, their care records were updated to make sure their support plans, risk assessments and current medication were accurate.
We saw the provider had a written complaints policy and procedure, which detailed the process that should be followed in the event of a complaint. The registered manager told us, and records confirmed that three complaints had been received by the service during 2014. We also noted that four compliments had been received by the service within the same period.
We saw the service had policies and procedures in place in relation to the safeguarding of adults and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We noted the registered manager had recently made eight Deprivation of Liberty safeguards applications to the local authority. This meant that people were safeguarded as required and the provider responded appropriately to any potential allegations of abuse.
Is the service well-led?
The service had a registered manager who had been in post since December 2008 and the provider had in place, systems to monitor the quality of the service people received.
Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. Relatives of the people who used the service were able to complete a satisfaction questionnaire. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times. The provider undertook regular audits and risk assessments to monitor the quality of the services and there were effective systems to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.
Both staff, people who used the service and their relatives said communication was good. One relative told us, 'They are always ringing up and letting us know what is going on.' Another relative's comments included, 'They ask the right questions; if there's a problem, they phone us,' and, 'The staff are all pleasant and ask relevant questions if they don't know things. They also link up very well with his day service and are great at letting us know what's going on; they're very caring that way.'
Staff received regular supervision and appraisal and told us they felt supported by the management team and a member of the management team was available on call for advice and support and in case of emergencies.
We saw that there was sufficient staff to provide care and support. The provider had an effective system in place to record and monitor complaints. Complaints were taken seriously and responded to appropriately.
The representatives or advocates of people who used the service were positive about the care and support provided. Comments included 'I can trust them totally. They know X well and look after his needs.'