Archived: Overcliff House

The home had a registered manager who was available during our inspection. 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.

People's risks were considered, managed and reviewed to keep people safe. All the people we spoke with told us they felt safe. Where possible, people had choice and control over their lives and were supported to engage in activities within the home. People participated in a range of daily activities both in the home which were meaningful and promoted their independence. People who used the service, and their relatives, said they felt safe and well looked after.

Staff met people's needs effectively and people told us that they were all kind and caring. Staff told us that they enjoyed working at the home and they were very knowledgeable about people's needs, preferences and life experiences. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity.

Staff had a good understanding of what constituted abuse and told us that they would be confident to recognise and report it.

There were enough staff to provide safe care and social activities. People and relatives we spoke with were satisfied with staffing levels.

Recruitment and selection was carried out safely with appropriate checks made before new staff could start working in the home.

Staff managed medicines safely. They gave them as prescribed and recorded, stored and disposed of them correctly. People were able to manage their own medicines if they were able to do so safely. People said staff gave them their medicines when they needed them.

People were supported well with their health needs and the provider sought information and advice swiftly where needed.

People told us they were offered a choice of meals. They said the meals were good and they were offered snacks and drinks, day and night.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People's care records were mostly comprehensive and detailed people's preferences. Records were regularly updated to reflect people's changing needs. People and their families were involved in the planning of their care.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to.

We carried out this unannounced inspection on the 21 February 2014, to follow up on compliance actions made at the last inspection of the home in July 2013. We spoke to three people living at the home, one member of staff and the manager.

People living at Overcliff House were positive about their experience of living at the home. No one had any complaints or concerns about how the home was run and managed. One person told us, "I love it here I am very happy". Another person told us, "I think they treat us very well".

The provider had suitable quality assurance procedures in place to manage the health and welfare of people living in the home. People were able to comment on the service provided.

People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.

People that we spoke with were positive about the way the home was run and managed. No complaints or concerns were raised with us during our visit.

People told us that staff were "lovely" and "wonderful", the food was good, the home was kept clean and there were organised activities to keep them occupied.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

We found that care plans accurately reflected people's needs and had been drawn up with their involvement.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

People were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not always maintained.

The provider had suitable quality assurance procedures in place to manage the health and welfare of people living in the home. However there was no evidence that learning from incidents / investigations took place and appropriate changes were

implemented.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. This was because they had complex needs which meant they were unable to tell us about their experience.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). It is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not talk with us.

We saw that some people were relaxed and engaged in different activities of interest to them. People had the opportunity to walk freely and there were things for people to pick up and do.

We observed that people were in positive or neutral moods and frequently smiled with each other and staff. People freely approached staff and had good relationships with them. Staff gently redirected, reassured and supported people when they became unsettled.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Care plans were person centred and regularly reviewed.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

The provider had a robust quality assurance system in place.