You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 3 June 2014
Date of Publication: 13 June 2014
Inspection Report published 13 June 2014 PDF | 86.5 KB


Inspection carried out on 3 June 2014

During a routine inspection

An adult social care inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions:

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service well-led?

During this inspection we spoke with five people using the service and two visitors. We also spoke with three care staff, a housekeeper, the deputy manager and the acting manager. We viewed records which included, three care plans and daily care records, policies and procedures, training records, staff rotas, menus and records of meals served, minutes from meetings and monitoring records.

We considered the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes. This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

Staff had received appropriate training and had access to 'safeguarding adults' and 'whistle blowing' procedures to help them recognise and respond to any signs of abuse or neglect. The management team was clear about their responsibilities for reporting incidents in line with local guidance and staff knew how to report any poor practice.

Staff had received training, and there were proper policies and procedures, in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had been submitted. This should ensure people’s best interests were safeguarded.

People told us they were happy with the staff team and said there were enough staff. We found there were sufficient, skilled and experienced nursing, care and ancillary staff to meet people's needs.

Is the service effective?

People told us they enjoyed the food. Comments included, "The food is great and there is always a choice", "The food is very good and I get the diet I need" and "The food is alright". Catering staff were aware of people's dietary preferences and were able to provide specialist diets as needed. Records showed there was a choice of food and drinks available.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and to monitor staff practice in areas such as medication, care planning, infection control and environment. However, the audits were not completed on a regular and planned basis and it was not clear how improvements had been made where shortfalls had been identified.

There had been no recent customer satisfaction surveys sent to people using the service or their relatives. This meant people’s views of the current service were not up to date.

Is the service caring?

We observed staff interacting with people in a pleasant and friendly manner and being respectful of people's choices and opinions. People told us they were happy with the staff team and one person said, “Staff are brilliant; I can’t praise them enough”.

Most of the care staff had achieved a recognised qualification in care and all had received training to meet the needs of people living in the home. It was clear from our observations and discussions with people that staff had a good understanding of people's needs.

Care records contained useful information about people's preferred routines and likes and dislikes. This should help staff look after people properly and ensure they received the care and support they needed and wanted.

Is the service responsive?

There were opportunities for involvement in a range of suitable activities. People had been involved in discussions and decisions about the activities they would prefer and activities were arranged for small groups of people or on a one to one basis. Comments included, “There is always something to do but I am happy to do my own thing" and "I get involved if I am interested in what they are doing”.

People had been encouraged to express their views and opinions of the service through meetings and during day to day discussions with staff and management. There was evidence their views had been listened to.

People were confident they could raise any concerns with the staff or managers. However we found that whilst people’s concerns had been responded to, they had not always been clearly recorded. This meant it was difficult to determine whether there were recurring problems or whether the information had been monitored and used to improve the service.

Regular reviews were carried out to respond to any changes in people's needs and to ensure the level of care was appropriate. Records showed some people living in the home, or their relatives had been involved in the planning and review of their care but this was not always clearly documented.

People's health and well-being was monitored and appropriate advice and support had been sought in response to changes in their condition. People told us their health needs were met. Assessments of any risks were recorded, managed and kept under review. This would help to keep people safe from harm.

Is the service well-led?

The current acting manager had been in post since April 2014 and would be forwarding an application to register as manager. We were told an application to de-register the previous manager had been forwarded to the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

We were told the home had been visited by representatives from the organisation. However, without any records of these visits, we were unable to determine how the day to day management of the home and how the manager’s practice had been monitored.