You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 September 2016

The inspection took place on 3 August 2016.

Diwali Nivas is registered to provide care and support for Asian elders who may experience a mental health condition or be living with dementia. Diwali Nivas is registered to provide care for up to 21 people. At the time of our inspection there were 21 people living at the home, however one person was in hospital.

A registered manager was in post. The registered manager was also the provider, and they were supported by a registered manager at the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last two inspections of the service in June 2014 and April 2015 we asked the provider to take action. We asked the provider to make improvements in the arrangements for cleanliness and infection control. We received an action plan from the provider which outlined the action they were going to take which advised us of their plan to be compliant by November 2015. We found that the provider had taken the appropriate action. Medicines were ordered and stored safely, and staff were trained to administer the medicines people required. Staff sought medical advice and support from health care professionals.

Personal evacuation plans (PEEP’s) were available and stored securely along with other documents and were placed near the fire board and main exit from the home. Copies of the PEEP’s were also kept in each person’s file and reviewed regularly along with other personal file documents.

People felt their privacy and dignity was respected and staff were kind and caring when delivering care and their choice of lifestyle. Relatives we spoke with were complimentary about the staff and the care offered to their relations. People’s care and support needs had been assessed and people were involved in the development of their care plans, and when able were involved in the review of their care plan. When appropriate people were happy for their relatives to be involved in care planning and review. We observed staff offered people everyday choices and respected their decisions. Staff had access to people’s care plans and received regular updates about people’s care needs. Care plans included changes to people’s care and treatment, and people attended routine health checks.

People were provided with a choice of meals that met their cultural and dietary preferences. The catering and care staff were provided with up to date information about people’s allergies and dietary needs. People’s opinions were sought to meet their individual meal choices. There were sufficient person centred activities provided on a regular basis and people’s cultural and religious needs were met. Staff had a good understanding of people’s care needs, and people were able to maintain contact with family and friends as visitors were welcome without undue restrictions.

Staff were subject to a thorough recruitment procedure that ensured staff were qualified and suitable to work at the home. They received induction and on-going training for their specific job role, and were able to explain how they kept people safe from abuse. Staff were aware of whistleblowing and what external assistance there was to follow up and report suspected abuse. Staff were employed in sufficient numbers to meet people’s personal care needs and we saw staff worked together to meet people's needs.

Staff told us they had access to information about people’s care and support needs and what was important to them. Staff knew they could make comments or raise concerns with the management team about the way the service was run and knew these would be acted on.

The provider had a clear management structure within the home, which meant that the staff were aware who to contact out of hours. The provider undertook quality monitoring in the home supported by the registered manager. The provider had developed opportunities for people to express their views about the service which included the views and opinions from people using the service, their relatives and health and social care professionals. We received positive feedback from a visiting health professional and contracting staff from the local authority with regard to the care and services offered to people. Staff were aware of the reporting procedure for faults and repairs and had access to the maintenance to manage any emergency repairs. A series of checks had been introduced that were overseen by the registered manager and then checked by the provider.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 September 2016

The service was safe.

Shortfalls in infection control that we noted at the last inspection have been resolved.

Potential risks to people were managed and concerns about people’s safety and lifestyle choices were discussed with them or their relatives to ensure their views were supported. Staff understood their responsibility to report any observed or suspected abuse. Staff were employed in numbers to protect people and medicines were ordered and stored safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 September 2016

The service was effective.

Staff had completed essential training to meet people’s needs safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff had a good understanding of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and asked for people’s consent to care before it was provided. People received appropriate food choices that provided a well-balanced diet and met their nutritional needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 September 2016

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and caring and treated people individually, recognising their privacy and dignity at all times. People were encouraged to make choices and were involved in decisions about their care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 September 2016

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that met their needs. People and their families were involved in planning how they were cared for and supported. Staff understood people’s preferences, likes and dislikes and how they wanted to spend their time. People told us they would have no hesitation in raising concerns or making a formal complaint if or when necessary.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 September 2016

The service was well led.

The provider used audits to check people were being provided with good care and to make sure records were in place to demonstrate this. People using the service, their relatives and visiting professionals had opportunities to share their views on the service.