When we visited The Chimneys there were 14 people living at the home. We spoke with five people and observed how staff provided care and support to people who live in the home. This was because some people either chose not to speak with us or had problems with their memory and could not tell directly us about their experiences of the care they received. A single inspector carried out this inspection. During the visit we also spoke with the manager and four staff members.
The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service and staff told us.
If you want to see the evidence supporting the summary please read the full report.
Is the service caring?
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Throughout our inspection visit we observed staff were respectful and sensitive in their approach to meeting people's needs. People told us things like, "All of the staff, day and night are caring. When they check on us at night the staff do it gently so we don't get worried' and 'The care from the staff is very good in my opinion.'
Assessments and care plans included people's likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff encouraged people to make decisions and choices for themselves. We also found the provider ensured people had a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink in sufficient quantities to meet their individual needs and preferences.
Is the service responsive?
People were involved in an assessment before they moved into the home and when they had moved in. Care plans were developed with people based on the assessment information. This included people's individual choices about how they wanted to be cared for. Assessments and care plans were up to date and regularly reviewed.
Is the service safe?
We saw the provider had made the required improvements to the issues we highlighted during our last inspection of the service on 5 December 2013. Staff followed the services policies and procedures in relation to managing medicines.
People told us that they felt safe living at the home. We saw safeguarding procedures were in place and that staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.
The manager had policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. This meant people were protected against the use of unlawful or excessive control or restraint because the provider had made suitable arrangements.
The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly so it did not put people at unnecessary risk.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. People said that they had been involved in writing them and they reflected their current needs.
People's needs were taken into account with signage and the layout of the service enabling people to move around freely and safely. The premises had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people with physical support needs.
People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint if they were unhappy. One person said, 'It's easy to speak with any of the staff. It feels like my family here and I trust them (staff) to sort out any problems.'
We spoke with the manager who confirmed any concerns raised had been addressed straight away and found responses had been open and timely.
People could therefore be assured that informal concerns were addressed and systems were in place to make sure more formal complaints would be investigated in the right way.
Is the service well led?
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. The manager had a quality assurance system and records seen by us showed that any shortfalls identified were addressed in the right way. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.