Nene Lodge Retirement Home

The provider used a dependency tool to determine staffing levels required. However, this did not consider the layout of the building and the staff rota showed occasions when care staff levels were below what was expected. People spoke positively about the service they received and highly of the management and staff team. However, examples were given of long wait times for calls for assistance and how staff were constantly busy and lacked time to spend with people.

Medicines management did not consistently follow expected best practice guidance. However, no person had come to harm.

The service was found to be clean and hygienic. Staff had access to personal protective equipment. Clinical waste was not disposed of as required. We discussed this with the provider who agreed to take action.

People's experience of visiting arrangements differed, with some people raising concerns about restrictions. The provider confirmed there were no restrictions and agreed to notify people and visitors of this.

Systems and processes that monitored quality and safety were not fully effective. Audits and checks were not always recorded to confirm checks had been completed and what the outcome was. This impacted on opportunities to continually develop and improve the service.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). At the time of the inspection, no person had a DoLS. However, we were concerned a DoLS was required for a person and asked the provider to submit an application.

Following the recent pandemic, resident and relative meetings had stopped. However, the provider was planning to introduce these again. People and relatives were confident they could raise any issues or concerns with the management team. Quality assurance procedures included an annual feedback survey for people and relatives to share their experience.

Safeguarding information was available to people. Staff had received training and understood their role and responsibility to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm.

Staff were positive about working at the service and the support they received. Visiting professionals gave positive feedback about their experience of working with staff to support people in their ongoing care needs.