Archived: Caddington Hall Residential Home

We found that people or their representatives had been involved in reviewing their care plans and an effective keyworker system was in place. The care plans had been reviewed frequently and reflected people's needs. Staff we spoke to showed a good understanding of the care plans and how people's needs were to be met. The staff interactions with people were positive and friendly. We found that staff had a good understanding of safeguarding vulnerable people from abuse and the home had effective procedures in place to minimise the risk of harm to people. The home had been significantly refurbished and was visibly clean and free from mal odours. The home had a robust quality assurance system in place and records were kept securely.

Staff told us how they enjoyed working at the home but that it was very busy at times. We were told by the people who used the service that there was not much to do at the home. People's care plans were not always relevant and care plans were not always followed. We found the home to be unclean on the day of our inspection and that some of the furniture and carpets needed replacing. We found that not all people had had their personal care needs met and were not all suitably dressed.

Some of the people we spoke to told us that they were satisfied with the care they had received, however others were not satisfied. They told us that they found the staff to be friendly and helpful but that they were always busy and some people had to wait long periods for staff to answer the call bell. One person said "They don't come quickly- very seldom".

One person told us, "The food is not the sort I would serve up. It's like school dinners" whilst other people liked the food.

We found that the home did not have suitable arrangements in place to monitor the quality of the service. This is because the audits conducted did not identify issues we found during the inspection.

The new manager has been busy recruiting new staff and has made some changes to improve the way people are cared for.

Staff told us how they enjoyed working at the home and had felt supported by the manager of the home who had recently left. However, some of the staff told us that staffing arrangements were suitable to meet the needs of the people who lived there. This was not the perception of all staff.

We were told by staff and the people who used the service that there was not much stimulation at the home and that people did not go out on visits into the local community. People told us that they get bored as there is nothing to do.

People's care plans were not always relevant and care plans were not always followed.

We found the home to be visibly clean on the day of our inspection although not all people had had their personal care needs met and were not all suitably dressed.

The people we spoke to told us that they were satisfied with the care they had received. They told us that they found the staff to be friendly and helpful. One person told us, 'The food is not bad and I get on with the staff but there is not much to do here'.

We found that the home did not have suitable arrangements in place to monitor the quality of the service. This is because the audits conducted did not identify issues we found during the inspection. We also found that incidents and complaints were not always managed appropriately.