Shelburne Lodge

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions in safe, responsive and well led to at least good.

During this inspection we found the provider had made improvements and was now meeting the regulations.

Shelburne 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.

Shelburne Lodge accommodates 54 people in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection there were 45 people using the service, 21 on the ground floor and 24 on the upper floor. The service requires a registered manager to manage the service. At the time of our inspection a registered manager was 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.

We received mixed views from people we spoke with about the service. Comments included, "I use my buzzer, they don't always come quickly", "Yes I use my buzzer; if you want a shower you can have one, you feel safe, they know how to do it", "Yes I have three pills a day and it all goes well". Relatives told us, "My [family member] gets on well with the carers", "I hear call bells going off and they seem to answer them very quickly", "On the whole they are alright, weekends are usually alright", "I've never regretted [family member] being here".

Safeguarding adults' procedures were in place and staff understood how to protect people from the risk of abuse.

The service had safe recruitment procedures in place to ensure only suitable staff were appointed. Sufficient

staff were available to meet people's needs.

Risk assessments were not always completed according to identified risks. Staff sought people's consent and involved them in the care planning process where possible.

People received their medicines as the prescriber intended. Audits were in place to monitor the administration of people's medicines.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The service ensued people had access to healthcare professionals when required. The GPs involved in the service carried out routine visits and advice was sought from other professionals when required.

The service had a complaints procedure which was available for people and their families to use as necessary.

Audits were carried out to monitor the quality of the service provided.

The five questions we ask about services and what we found