Archived: Vansett Care Home

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

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People felt safe receiving support from the provider and staff. We were told that staff were competent and able to carry out their responsibilities effectively. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. We did, however find that aspects of the environment were in need of cleaning and repair. We were told there was an ongoing programme of refurbishment. We found the service to be safe.

Is the service effective?

We saw care plans were detailed and personalised and focused on the dignity of the person as well as their care and support needs. Staff told us they had time to read care plans and supporting documents and felt the had enough time to carry out their allocated duties. Some people using the service, however, felt that staff were, at times, too busy. The atmosphere within the home was calm. We found the service to be effective.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with people who used the service, relatives, staff and managers, including the registered manager. People were almost wholly complimentary about their care and support with one person describing staff as "great" and "helpful". Another said they "liked all the staff" but felt the home "needs some new ones as there aren't enough staff at times".

Staff told us they were impressed with the way dignity was shown to people and staff were motivated to deliver quality of care to people. We observed staff engage with people who used the service and their relatives in a relaxed, friendly and courteous way. We found the service to be caring.

Is the service responsive?

We were told by people using the service, relatives and staff they felt able to raise any concerns or ideas with managers. We found evidence that managers were frequently on the premises and known to people who used; visited and worked in the service. We saw supervision was carried out and concerns in relation to practice were addressed in a timely way. We found the service to be, in the main, responsive.

Is the service well-led?

We saw that managers were accessible to staff and staff felt able to make decisions that would be supported by managers. However there was a lack of rigor in the quality assurance processes. We were told by managers that this had been identified and measures were being put in place to address this with the appointment of a consultant to implement a programme of audit and quality assurance checks. However at the time of the visit, we found that there was a lack of effective quality assurance processes in place to monitor quality. Therefore, we did not find the service to be well-led.

Since our previous inspection, the provider had implemented new risk assessments and care plans for people who had medical conditions such as diabetes or epilepsy.

People were supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. Care workers supported people with nutrition in a suitable way. We saw care workers sat beside the person and assist them with their meal and drink in a relaxed manner.

The provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained. The provider had contracted an external health and safety consultant to assist them with assessing and managing the risks to people who use the service associated with the premises.

We saw documentation was kept up to date and reviewed in a timely way. Risk assessments and care plans were reviewed as needed or at set intervals by the care workers. People who use the service and their relatives confirmed they were involved in updates.

Staff respected people's dignity and privacy when caring for them. We observed staff knocked on doors before entering people's rooms and ensured there was privacy when providing intimate care.

We looked at the provider's fire risk assessment documentation. We noted this had not been reviewed or amended since 2009. This meant appropriate fire risks and evacuation strategies had not been regularly reviewed.

People we spoke with expressed concerns about the building. They told us some of the carpets and floors needed repair work. One relative we spoke with was complimentary about a person's bedroom, after the room had been renovated by the provider.

We spoke with people at the service who were very complimentary about the care received. They told us they had no reason to complain, but if they did they could speak to the manager at any time. This was confirmed by relatives who also spoke with us.