Archived: 10 Orchard Avenue

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

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

Is the service safe?

We saw that care was delivered in safe, accessible surroundings that promoted people's wellbeing. The home's dining room, lounge and kitchen were clean, warm and well maintained. We saw two bedrooms which were clean, bright, and tidy with a pleasant aroma. Toilets were clean and accessible and the garden was well maintained.

Records were up to date, kept securely and were accessible when needed. This meant that the service was protecting people's confidentiality.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed, specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. People said that they had been involved in the care planning process and that they were happy with the care that was provided.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. People told us that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. One person told us, 'staff are very kind and thoughtful.' People using the service, and their relatives, were contacted regularly to check if they were satisfied with their care. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. The provider had a complaints procedure that was accessible to people who use the service.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. Staff told us that the manager was 'always available' for people who used the service and 'responded very quickly.' Staff were clear about

their roles and responsibilities, and had a good understanding of the ethos of the home.

When we inspected on 25 September 2012, we were concerned that the provider did not have systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the services provided in the carrying on of the regulated activities. When we inspected again on 30 May 2013, we looked at provider records and saw that surveys had been completed by the two people using the service and their relatives. Survey results were positive with, for example, all respondents scoring the provider as 'excellent' for quality of d'cor and accommodation.

We looked at the care plans of the two people using the service and saw that they had recently been updated. The care plans contained individualised risk assessments covering things like mobility and pressure sores. They also recorded appointments with health professionals, such as the GP and other hospital appointments We saw a menu book which recorded what people had consumed and also what had been refused (hot drink, desert etc.). We also saw up to date daily logs which recorded behavioural changes and activities undertaken.