At the time of the inspection the home accommodated 39 people and 1 person was staying at the home for respite. We spoke with three people who lived at the home. We also spoke with three members of staff, a healthcare professional who was visiting the home during our inspection and the general manager.We set out to answer our 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 who used the service and the staff told us.
Is the service safe?
People's health and care needs were assessed before they moved into the home.
We found that there were enough experienced staff to meet people's needs. On the day of the inspection there were four care staff, ancillary staff and the manager on duty.
The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) - although no applications had needed to be made. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and in how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.
Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of what constituted abuse and the different avenues available to them to report concerns. The training matrix demonstrated that all staff had received safeguarding training.
Is the service effective?
People who lived at Wimborne expressed their satisfaction about living at the home. One person told us "I am happy with everything that Wimborne has to offer me', another person said "staff are very attentive to my needs, I wouldn't change a thing".
All people had an individual care plan which set out their care needs. We looked at four individual care plans which we found to be detailed and comprehensive and clearly identified people's needs.
Is the service caring?
We made observations throughout the visit and saw people being offered choices as to what they wanted to eat or what activities they wanted to take part in during the day. For example we saw staff encouraging people to participate in singing and dancing with them.
Staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. They were aware of people's needs and the preferences of people they cared for in how people wanted care to be delivered. Our observations showed that people were addressed by staff in a respectful manner.
Is the service responsive?
People we spoke with told us they were listened to and staff respected their wishes.
The provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. We saw a record was maintained of any complaints made along with a record of any investigation and the findings as well as a record of the outcome of the complaint investigation.
Is the service well led?
There was a clear management structure with good lines of communication and accountability. Staff spoken with were clear about reporting arrangements.
All staff received regular supervision meetings. The manager told us that staff performance issues were addressed through these meetings and additional staff training was identified as necessary.
We saw that regular audits of the service were completed by the provider which ensured people who used the service benefit from a service that monitored the quality of care that people received.
There was no registered manager at the time of the inspection. The current manager was in the process of registration with the Commission.