Harrier Lodge

“At this inspection, the service had made improvements and was no longer in breach of any regulations. However, further work was needed to embed these improvements. We found that care was not always delivered in a person-centred way, and staff did not consistently demonstrate an understanding of people who may experience anxiety. The service also did not always work collaboratively with other professionals and services. People, relatives and staff did not always feel the registered manager was visible and engaged them in the service.”

“Risks to people were now managed to reduce harm to them. There were management plans in place that provided guidance to staff to reduce risks to people. People were now safeguarded from the risk of abuse. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew the actions to take to report abuse.”

“Incidents and accidents were reviewed, analysed, and actions taken to ensure learning from them. People’s medicines were administered and managed safely. We observed that there were now enough staff available to support people. Staff had an induction when they started their jobs, and had received training in their roles. Staff were trained in infection control and followed procedures to reduce risks of infection.”

“People’s nutritional needs were met. People were encouraged to eat a balanced diet and drink enough to keep hydrated. People had access to the healthcare services they needed to maintain good health, and staff liaised effectively with other services.”

“People were now 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. People’s consent was sought for the care and support they received.”

“People were supported to maintain good health. People’s end-of-life wishes were documented in their care plans and followed when required. People were supported and encouraged to participate in activities they enjoyed.”

“People and their relatives knew how to raise complaints about the service. Complaints were appropriately addressed in line with the provider’s procedure. The service had effective systems to monitor the quality and safety of care.”