Archived: Bowland View

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

There were no unnecessary rules or restrictive practices in place at Bowland View. People had their own agreed 'house rules' they observed. These centred around safety and were designed to reduce the risk of placing unnecessary restrictions on people.

We found people had been given a contract of residence outlining the terms and conditions of residency therefore protecting their legal rights.

Staff had been trained and understood their obligation to apply the principles of the Mental capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). This is a legal framework designed to protect the best interests of people who are unable to make their own decisions. No person living at the home had been assessed as needing this safeguard in place.

People told us they were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Staff had been made aware of who may be at risk of self-harm, self-neglect, exploitation, violence, and absconding and they had a plan of care to deal with this.

People's care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way to protect them from any unlawful discrimination within the home and wider community. They had opportunities to continue to live as valued citizens and access community health and social facilities.

Staff were trained in emergency procedures such as fire and first aid. Other emergency situations were planned for such as responding to a missing person alert.

People had their medication when they needed it and staff had been trained to administer medication safely. This was monitored by senior management.

Care had been taken to make sure people were kept safe by only employing people who had proven good character records.

Systems were in place to make sure the provider and management continually checked the service was safe. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Is the service caring?

People told us they were happy with the care they received from the staff team, They said, 'One good thing here is that the staff are always there when I need to talk with someone. They are good listeners and give good advice.' They described staff as 'friends', 'very helpful and understanding', and 'caring, someone you can talk to if you have any problems or worries'. They said, 'The staff are absolutely fantastic and very respectful. They understand me very well and I wouldn't hesitate to go to them if I needed some support.'

Staff worked to care plans that were person centred, well written and sufficiently detailed on how best to meet individual needs. Daily records maintained showed staff responded to people's needs as required day and night. Staff had received training to meet the needs of people living in the home.

People told us, 'We always discuss things with the staff. We have meetings with our key worker and they ask us how things are and what we would like. It's good as you can have your say. I don't like it when people move on or we get new staff. We get to meet new people wanting to live here and we can say how we feel. It's important for everyone to get on. The staff are absolutely fantastic and very respectful. They understand me very well and I wouldn't hesitate to go to them if I needed some support.' And 'I don't like change either. I have meetings to discuss my support and what is working well for me.'

Is the service responsive?

People were given plenty of opportunities to say what they wanted. This meant plans could be made to support people to achieve their aims. We saw evidence there was consultation with health and social care professionals to review the quality of people's care. Key workers reviewed people's needs on a continuing basis and had reflection meetings with them. This helped to make sure people's changing needs was managed appropriately.

People had expressed their desire to get out more and in addition to the daily activities provided, people were given a two hour personal activity time and could choose what they wanted to do. One person had commented, they 'enjoyed going on outings and that they were nice surprises'.

Residents meetings were held and people could say what they wanted and they felt listened to. A system was in place for receiving comments, compliments and complaints. People told us that they would know how to make a complaint, should they need to do so.

People told us they were involved in the selection and recruitment of new staff. This meant people were cared for by staff they wanted to support them.

To make sure 'missing person' alerts were handled well, a protocol for dealing with this had been put together with the police to avoid any unnecessary action being taken.

Is the service effective?

People told us they discussed their care. They had their own preferred lifestyles, routines, likes and dislikes that staff knew about. The service used STAR (Salford Tool for Assessment of Risk) plan. This placed people at the centre of their care and offered needed support and encouragement for people to achieve their aims.

People's health and well-being was monitored and appropriate advice and support had been sought in response to changes in their condition. The service had good links with other health care professionals to make sure people received prompt, co-ordinated and effective care.

People told us they were consulted with and listened to. They had a programme of daily living and social activities. One person told us, 'I like dancing and getting out and about. We had a fantastic birthday party and we had all our friends here. We can have friends over. Nobody minds. Staff will get involved with whatever we are doing. I get out on my own if I want. I can generally please myself.' Both people we spoke with told us they did their own grocery shopping, cooked meals and generally kept their rooms clean.

Is the service well led?

People told us the management of the service was very good. They said they had regular meetings and considered this 'good' as they could have their say. They got to meet new people who wanted to live in the home before they were admitted and they liked to be involved in staff recruitment. This helped them manage change. People also told us they were treated well. If they had any concerns they knew who they could talk to.

The service had a registered manager responsible for the day to day management of the home. Staff were clear about their responsibilities and duty of care and were able to raise their views and concerns. They were supervised well and had appraisals. Meetings were held for staff and residents and these showed people were kept up to date and allowed to be involved with all aspects of the running of the home including best practice issues and quality monitoring.

There were systems in place to regularly assess and monitor how the home was managed and to monitor the quality of the service. We saw evidence the service knew when to consult with health and social care professionals when required. This meant any decision about people's care and support was made by the appropriate staff at the appropriate level.

One staff member we spoke to told us they had received a lot of training and had received support from the management as well as receiving supervision from their line manager.

We reviewed the care files for two people who used the service and found that they contained individualised care plans which included information about risk. These provided information for staff about how to support people and keep them safe. We found these had been reviewed on a regular basis and individuals had been involved.

We found that staff had received training on safeguarding vulnerable adults and had access to appropriate policies and procedures and training resources.

We spoke with one member of staff who told us they felt well supported and had received training appropriate and relevant to their job role.

We found there were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.