Archived: Housing & Care 21 - St Edmunds

As part of this inspection we spoke with eight people who used the service, spoke with two family members of people who used the service, the registered manager and five other members of staff. We also carried out observations, reviewed records relating to the management of the service which included four care plans, daily records, policies and procedures, staff records and quality assurance monitoring records.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

Family members of people who used the service told us that they were satisfied with how their relatives' support and care needs had been safely met. They also told us that they felt satisfied that their relative was safe living at the care home. People who used the service also said that they felt safe.

Health and safety risk assessments had been carried out and measures were in place to minimise these risks, to keep people safe.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care services. While no applications have needed to be submitted, policies and procedures were in place and under review. Relevant staff have been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

People were now safer. Since our previous inspection of 18 October 2013, improvements have been made to ensure that people are supported to take their medication as prescribed and this was now accurately recorded.

There were a sufficient number of trained and competent members of staff employed to provide people with safe and appropriate care as planned.

Is the service effective?

People's choices and decisions about their support and care were respected and valued.

People who used the service and family members, who represented their relative who used the service, were satisfied with the how their relatives' support and care needs were being met.

Procedures were in place to ensure that where people may not have had the mental capacity to understand complex information, their health and social care needs would be met in their best interests.

People were provided with effective support and care that enabled them to remain living in the community.

Is the service caring?

We observed that members of staff treated people who used the service in a kind and attentive way. People who we spoke with, including people's family members, told us that staff were kind and caring.

People's independence, privacy and dignity were promoted and maintained.

We saw people who used the service were supported to engage in meaningful activities. This enabled people to feel less isolated and part of their local community.

People showed us that they positively responded to members of staff. This included becoming settled with showing signs of being content.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs, choices and personal preferences had been assessed and planned for. Members of staff demonstrated to us how they respected people's choices and decisions about their support and care.

People's individual social and health care needs were responded to. People were supported to maintain contact with health care professionals, friends and family members, when this support was needed.

Is the service well-led?

Since our previous inspection, which we carried out on 18 October 2013, there was now improved monitoring and reviewing systems in place to ensure that people were safely supported with their prescribed medication.

Members of staff told us that they had the training and support to safely do their job, which they said they enjoyed. The standard of their work was reviewed and monitored to make sure that people received safe and appropriate support and care.

Opportunities were made available for people who used the service, their relatives and staff members, to make suggestions and comments to improve the quality of people's support and care.

Staff had access to detailed care plans to ensure that they provided people with safe, appropriate, individual care and support.

People using the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

Our review of people's Medication Administration Records (MARS) showed that they were not always accurately completed by staff to ensure that people were protected against the misuse of medication.

Provider training records showed that staff training was in place to make sure that people who used the service received safe support and care from suitable, skilled, and knowledgeable staff.

We did not see an effective quality assurance system in place. This was because the provider had improvements to make to the service around the accurate recording of medication administration to ensure that safe care and support was provided to people.

However, suitable arrangements were not in place where necessary to properly assess people's ability to make such decisions in line with published guidance relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Care plans showed that staff were given guidance about people's individual needs and how they should be met. One person told us, 'It's out of this world, top class and the care is so good.' We observed staff delivering appropriate levels of care and support during our inspection.

The offices were safe, suitable and fit for purpose. Adequate emergency procedures were in place and the safety equipment we saw was regularly checked and well maintained.

Records showed the provider had effective recruitment procedures in place to ensure that staff were fit, able and properly trained to meet the needs of people who used the service. One person told us, 'Staff are very good; they take time to get to know me and cater for my needs'.

The provider had an effective complaints procedure in place. Everyone we spoke with knew how to complain and to whom, but told us they had no reason to do so.