Acorn Lodge Residential Care Home

“At the last inspection in 2018 the home was rated good. At this inspection we found standards had declined and the home was now in breach of legal regulations for governance.”

“Incident records were not always reviewed in full to support learning. Information in care plans and risk assessments lack the necessary detail to ensure risks were well managed, and staff could respond to behaviour that communicated a need, emotion or distress consistently. We found several concerns with fire safety and the safety of the environment. Employment history for new staff was not always completed in full and there were gaps to staff training and supervision.”

“Care plans lacked information about people’s health and care needs, and were not always reviewed when people’s needs changed. Consent forms had not always been signed by people, their next of kin or representatives and staff did not have training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to support their understanding of consent.”

“Information was not always provided to people in line with the Accessible Information Standards (AIS) and care plans did not include robust information about people’s communication needs.”

“Checks and audits had not identified concerns we found during our inspection or ensure appropriate action had been taken to mitigate risk. Information was not robust, with care plans and risk assessments lacking adequate detail.”

“However, the home considered the safety and continuity of care when people moved between services. Safeguarding systems protected people from abuse and neglect, and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place for those who needed them. Staff supported people with positive risk taking. There were enough staff to safely meet people’s needs. The home was found to be clean and hygienic, and medicines were managed safely.”

“Staff worked well as a team, and information was shared effectively with health and social care partners, including when people became unwell and needed medical treatment. People’s outcomes were monitored regularly, with people being consulted about the effectiveness of their care.”

“Staff were kind and caring and treated people like individuals. Activities staff were employed to support people to get out in the local community, or take part in in-house activities. Staff knew people well, enabling them to respond to signs of pain, distress or clinical deterioration quickly. The provider promoted good staff wellbeing, with staff feeling valued and supported.”

“People received person centred care from staff who understood their needs, and continuity of care was prioritised. The home considered accessibility when people were moving into the home, and managers and staff understood the barriers people faced and advocated on behalf of people to improve outcomes. Staff had training in end of life care.”

“The provider had a clear vision which was embedded within the team, and managers lead by example. Staff felt able to speak up about any concerns and were treated fairly. The home worked closely with health and social care partners and collaborated for improvement. The provider and managers were focused on continuous learning and responsive to concerns.”

“Following feedback, the manager took action to address some of our concerns around incidents, the environment, recruitment and training, care plans…”