Last updated 11 August 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This unannounced inspection was undertaken on 6 July 2016.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the completed PIR and previous inspection reports before the inspection.

We reviewed other information we had about the provider, including notifications of any safeguarding or other incidents affecting the safety and well-being of people using the service.

This inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

We met with 17 people who used the service and asked them if they were happy with their care and if they liked the home and the staff who supported them. However, due to people’s cognitive impairments, some of the conversations with people were limited and we were only able to say hello and ask how they were feeling. Because of this we spent time observing interactions between people and the staff who were supporting them.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI), which is a specific way of observing care to help to understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We wanted to check that the way staff spoke and interacted with people was having a positive effect on their well-being.

We spoke in more detail with six people who were more able to give us their views.

We also looked at the comments people and their relatives had made about the quality of the service from the results of the most recent quality survey carried out by the service and resident meeting minutes.

We spoke with nine staff, five relatives and two healthcare professionals who had regular contact with people living at the home. We were also able to speak with two committee members of the non-profit making charity who help run the service.

We looked at six people’s care plans and other documents relating to their care including risk assessments and medicines records. We looked at other records held at the home including staff meeting minutes as well as health and safety documents and quality audits.