People’s experience of using this service:

People and their relatives were positive about the care provided at Spring Lodge. The environment was homely, clean and safe.

There were enough competent and skilled staff to support people safely and according to their individual preferences. Staff knew people well and had developed meaningful relationships with them.

Medicines were managed safely and there was a culture of continuous improvement.

Staff were kind, caring and passionate about the service provided and there was a positive culture. Staff supported people with dignity and respect.

Staff supported people to have maximum choice and control of their lives and in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were involved in how the service was run and were supported to maintain their independence and to make their own choices about where they spent their time and how. People were able to participate in a range of activities which promoted a good quality of life.

People's health was well managed and there were positive links with professionals to ensure that individual health and nutritional needs were met.

The service was well managed and staff, people and relatives were positive about the registered manager. There were appropriate quality processes were in place to ensure high quality care.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 29 June 2016)

About the service: Spring Lodge is a care home for older people situated in a residential area of Clacton On Sea. The accommodation is located over two floors. There were 16 people living at the service on the day of inspection.

The service is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor all intelligence received about the service to ensure the next planned inspection is scheduled accordingly.

Spring Lodge provides accommodation and personal care for up to 20 older people, some living with dementia. There were 20 people in the service when we inspected on 6 April 2016. This was an unannounced inspection.

There was a registered manager 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.

People were at the heart of the service and received care that was personalised to them and met their needs and wishes. People told us how staff went the extra mile to make sure that they were happy. Staff were compassionate, attentive and caring in their interactions with people,

Feedback from people and relatives about the staff and management team was consistent and extremely positive. They were delighted with the kindness and thoughtfulness of staff, which exceeded their expectations of how they would be cared for and supported. The atmosphere in the service was warm and welcoming and people, relatives and visitors all emphasised how the service had a ‘good feeling.’

Procedures were in place which safeguarded the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood the various types of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to and were very clear that they would have no hesitation in reporting concerns. They were confident that these would be dealt with appropriately

People presented as relaxed and at ease in their surroundings and told us that they felt safe. Staff knew how to minimise risks and provide people with safe care. Procedures and processes provided guidance to staff on how to ensure the safety of the people who used the service.

People were provided with their medicines when they needed them and in a safe manner. People were prompted, encouraged and reassured as they took their medicines and given the time they needed.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and this was closely monitored and reviewed in consultation with the people living at the service and with the staff. Recruitment processes checked the suitability of staff to work in the service.

People, relatives and others told us how staff showed empathy and understanding. Staff showed genuine interest in people’s lives and knew them well. They understood people’s preferred routines, likes and dislikes and what mattered to them. People told us that they felt that their choices, independence, privacy and dignity was promoted and respected

People were provided with personalised care and support which was planned to meet their individual needs. People felt staff listened to what they said and their views were important when their care was planned and reviewed. The service was committed to ensuring that staff took the time to find out about people’s life history and what was important to them.

Staff were well trained and supported to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff consistently received targeted group and individual support to continually learn and develop. This development was promoted as an integral part of everyday life so people, relatives and others also understood the importance of ongoing learning. The focus on the importance of skills and knowledge gave staff the tools they needed to deliver a high standard of care and support.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and met. Professional advice and support was obtained for people when needed. People were offered meals that were suitable for their individual dietary needs and met their preferences.

People were supported to see, when needed, health and social care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. The service proactively engaged with these professionals and acted on their recommendat

Our inspection team was made up of one inspector who answered our five questions. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our conversations with the manager, two staff, three people who used the service, one friend of a person who used the service, a visiting community nurse, a GP and from looking at records. Where it was not possible to communicate with people who used the service we used our observations to gather information.

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. A visiting community nurse told us, “The home is very good and it is always clean and tidy.” And “The staff are very caring and well informed about people’s needs.”

Records contained detailed assessments of people's needs that had been carried out prior to them moving to the service. This ensured that the staff had the relevant skills and knowledge required to meet the individual's identified needs.

Where people did not have the mental capacity to provide consent the provider complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff had received training in this area. The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. Whilst no applications had needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

The provider had clear policies and procedures regarding medication, we saw that medication was stored, administered and disposed of in line with their policies and procedures. Staff received annual refresher training in administering medication. The provider carried out regular audits of medication.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. One person said, "I feel safe here.”

Is the service effective?

It was clear from what we saw, and from speaking with staff, that they understood people's care and support needs and that they knew the people well. A friend of a person who used the service told us, “The staff are polite, caring and they treat my friend with respect."

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care, where they were unable to do so staff had spoken to their relatives or friends to gain their views. Specialist dietary needs had been identified in care plans where required.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. One person who used the service said, "The staff always encourage me to be involved in discussing my care needs."

Is the service responsive?

Where people's care needs had changed appropriate referrals to the doctor, district nurse and dentist had been made and any recommendations had been acted on. The manager had regular contact with the relatives of people who used the service and health care professionals. Both of the health care professionals we spoke with were complimentary about the professionalism of the manager and the staff. They told us, “The home makes appropriate referrals to us.”

Is the service well led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. Health care professionals who we spoke with told us, “The communication between them and the staff had been excellent they had kept us informed of people’s changing health needs. A person who was visiting their friend told us, "The home ensured that the relevant health care professionals had been involved in assessing my friends changing health needs, they also ensured that we were closely involved in the process."

We saw the responses from the stakeholder survey. People had commented positively about the quality of the care provided to the people who lived in the home.

The service had a quality assurance system in place. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

The two staff we spoke with told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and they received excellent training, support and supervision from the manager. They told us that this enabled them to provide excellent care and support to people who used the service. We saw that staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

We spoke with three people who used the service who told us they were very happy with the service. One person said, "I love it here and do not want to go anywhere else." We also spoke with a relative who said, "The staff are very caring and always have time for her [relative]."

People told us they were consulted about their care and treatment and we observed that staff ensured people had a choice: for example, during our inspection, a staff member asked people what they would prefer for lunch as there was a varied choice. People told us they could also make specific choices that were not on the menu.

During our inspection we saw that people were supported to express their views and choices by whatever means they were able. Staff clearly understood each person's individual needs to support their care and wellbeing.

We looked at the care plans and records of four people who used the service and found people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

People, staff and relatives were positive about the manager and staff demonstrated the appropriate knowledge to provide care in ways that people preferred and met their needs.

People lived in a home that was well maintained, safe and suitable for their needs. We found people were protected from the risk of abuse as staff demonstrated a clear knowledge of what was expected of them and the home was managed by a skilled management team.

We gathered evidence of people’s experiences of the service by talking with people, observing how they spent their time and noting how they interacted with other people living in the home and with staff.

During our inspection we spoke with people who told us they enjoyed living at Spring Lodge. One person said “The staff are very good” and another told us “You can’t fault the food.” We saw that people were relaxed and comfortable with staff and others living in the home and there was a homely atmosphere.

Relatives who completed surveys as part of the home’s quality assurance system were complimentary about the staff, the management team and the standard of care provided at Spring Lodge. One relative stated “My [relative] is very happy in such a pleasant environment.”

Staff were knowledgeable about the needs of people living in the home, treated them with respect and provided care in ways that people preferred and that met their needs.

The home was well managed by a skilled and competent management team. Records were well organised and maintained to a good standard.

People who lived at Spring Lodge were well cared for, made decisions about how their care and support was provided and were involved in activities of their choice. They told us that the staff treated them with dignity and respect and were kind and caring.

People told us that the meals were good, there was a range of activities to be involved in if they wanted to be and the staff were nice as well as "a good laugh." One person told us "You are treated like a human being and that's the most important thing."