Archived: St Michaels House

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People's care plans reflected their individual needs and risks and they were regularly reviewed. The staff had daily hand overs to ensure good safe care. People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were securely maintained.

Is the service effective?

From observations and from speaking with staff, they demonstrated that they had a good understanding of people's care and support needs. One person who used the service said, 'It's brilliant'. We saw a compliment from a health professional, they stated that the support had, 'substantially improved' a person's quality of life and that the person was 'emphatically happy' as a result. There were gaps in the staff training provision in safeguarding of vulnerable adults, mental capacity act and deprivation of liberty safeguards which had the potential to impact on people's safety and welfare. People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by respectful and courteous staff. We saw that staff provided appropriate levels of care and support in a kind, patient and respectful way. Staff told us, "Our ethos is that we want people to feel at home."

Is the service responsive?

People who came back to St Michaels House for periods of respite care had their needs reviewed each time to ensure the home could continue to meet their needs. There were lots of activities for people and support from staff.

Is the service well led?

Staff had a good understanding of their roles within the home and quality assurance processes were in place, for example risk management was documented in people's care plans. Staff told us they were well led by their manager, this included daily hand overs, supervisions and support.

People told us that they were happy at the service. One person told us: "It's lovely. They are great." They went on to say: "I like coming here. I wouldn't want to go anywhere else."

We saw that care records contained an individual service plan that covered all areas of a person's daily life, including getting up, bathing requirements, mobility inside and outside of the premises and communication. We noted that the section that indicated that a person's individual service plan had been reviewed at the start of each stay with the service had not been completed in four of the five records that we looked at.

On the day of our inspection the premises looked clean and smelled fresh. We saw that all the bedrooms were clean and dust free. The premises had been designed to be suitable to meet the needs of people with physical disabilities with wide corridors and ample space within the bedrooms to allow people who used wheelchairs to move around freely. We saw that the weekly log of fire checks indicated that these, which included the fire alarm checks and checks of fire doors and glasses, had all been undertaken when they were due.

We looked at the training matrix for all the staff who worked at the service. We saw that there were very large gaps in the refresher training recorded for staff members in essential areas.

People told us that they had been given information about the home and where possible, had visited prior to their first stay. They said that staff involved them in devising their care plan, listened to them and were respectful of their views.

All five people said that staff understood and met their needs. One person told us, 'The carers are really good.' Another said, 'The staff are really nice. They are always around to have a chat with if I've got any problems. More importantly they are always ready to have a laugh.' We found care plans detailed the care each person required. Risk assessments and guidance notes supported these and ensured that care was provided safely.

There enough skilled and experienced staff on duty at the home to meet people's needs. This was continuously assessed and adjusted according to the dependency levels of the people staying at the home at any one time. All the staff that we spoke with during this inspection were very knowledgeable about the needs of the people staying at the home.

The manager and provider sought people's views about the service provided both formally, through surveys and reviews, and informally during their stay. One person told us, "The manager is always available for a word if anyone needs it, all the staff are really."