St Helens Hall and Lodge

We assessed all 8 quality statements from this key question. Our rating for this key question remains good. We were assured that safety in the home was prioritised and people were protected from the risk of harm. Effective processes and systems were in place to ensure that safeguarding concerns were reported, responded to, and investigated appropriately and lessons learned were shared amongst the team and wider management. Staff were recruited safely, provided with a comprehensive induction, and offered supervision in line with their policies. Staff received relevant training and dates for any outstanding training were being arranged urgently by the registered manager. People felt safe in the home and were happy with the care they received. Partners provided positive feedback, and a recent assessment carried out by the local authority identified no concerns. The environment was safe and suitable for the needs of people. Risk assessments were in place and care records contained information on how to support people in line with best practice guidance. Concerns were identified around the storage and administration of some medicines, however when raised with the registered manager, urgent steps were taken to resolve these issues.

We assessed 1 quality statement from this key question. We have combined the scores for this area with the scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question remains good. We found that professionals, people, and their families, worked together and were all involved in assessing people’s needs and reviewing care. Specific risk assessments and guidance for staff were in place to ensure suitable care was provided and reviewed effectively.

We assessed 3 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for this area with the scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question remains good. People were treated with kindness and their dignity was respected. People were offered choices, and independence was encouraged by staff. Mental capacity assessments were in place and best interest decisions recorded for people who were unable to make an informed decision for themselves. People’s needs were responded to in a timely manner and managed appropriately. Care plans were person centred reflecting people’s likes and dislikes. A range of activities were on offer daily for people to engage with and feedback on future activities was welcomed.

We assessed 2 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the score for this area with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question remains good. People were treated fairly and did not experience discrimination. People felt listened to and were encouraged to raise concerns and suggestions individually and via relative meetings and resident discussion groups.

We assessed 1 quality statement from this key question. We have combined the score for this area with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question remains good. We found there was clear and effective governance processes in place which supported the delivery of safe care and treatment. A robust recruitment and induction process was in place to ensure staff received appropriate training, ongoing monitoring and were clear on their responsibilities.