Archived: George Lane

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People's needs were assessed in relation to the support they required with their medicines. Records showed that people had received this support as planned and they received their medicines safely as prescribed.

Individual risks to people were assessed and plans were put in place to promote their safety. Records showed staff had put into practice these guidelines when working with people. Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Is the service effective?

People's needs and preferences had been assessed and they had an individual support plan which set out how the service supported them. People told us they received the support they needed.

Is the service caring?

People told us they were supported by kind and friendly staff. They said staff enabled them to keep in touch with friends and family members. Staff understood how to communicate well with people.

Is the service responsive?

People told us they were supported to follow their own interests and went out to a wide range of activities.

Is the service well-led?

People told us the provider had asked them for their views about the service and listened to them. The provider had made checks of the service and made recommendations for improvements. At the time of the inspection these had not yet been implemented and there was no registered manager in post. The management of the service is due to transfer to a new provider and registered manager in October 2014.

We saw evidence that the provider was working in conjunction with health and social care professional agencies when completing assessments and reviews of care plans. We saw that information was being provided to people who used the service in formats appropriate to their communication needs, for example, in "easy read" formats.

The accommodation was of a suitable design and layout. We also saw that the premises were adequately secured. We found that there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet the needs of the people who used the service and we saw that staff were supporting people in the community on a one to one basis. We saw evidence that the staff employed were suitably experienced and skilled.

The provider had measures in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and there was a formal complaints policy in place.

We spoke with all of the people using the service. They all expressed that they were happy living in the home. One smiled and gave a 'thumbs up' sign when asked if he thought the home was a good place to live. Another said it was very nice and the staff were good.

Staff had undergone safeguarding training and were familiar with the action they should take if they suspected abuse was taking place. The relevant authorities were notified of any safeguarding concerns.

Staff said that they felt well supported by the provider. They felt that they were provided with a satisfactory amount of training, and when starting at this home they had been provided with induction training.

People using the service who we spoke to said that they had not made any complaints. The service recorded complaints, and none had been made this year. Three compliments had been received from relatives. The service had a complaints procedure and this had been simplified and illustrated with pictures to make it easier for people using the service to understand.