You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 29 May 2014
Date of Publication: 13 November 2014
Inspection Report published 13 November 2014 PDF

Overview

Inspection carried out on 29 May 2014

During a routine inspection

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continuously improve.

The service had policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). There was no one currently using the service who had a DOLS in place. The provider knew how to request an assessment if this was required. Staff received safeguarding and Mental Capacity training. This meant people would be safeguarded as required.

When people were identified as being at risk, their care plans showed the actions that would be required to manage these risks. These included the provision of specialist equipment such as pressure relieving mattresses, hoists and walking aids.

People were protected from the risk of infection because staff followed good infection control practice and these practices were monitored regularly.

There were sufficient care workers to respond to people's health and welfare needs. A person who used the service told us, "The staff are very good, they know what they are doing. We have the right kind of staff."

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in developing their plans of care. People told us they were included in making decisions about how their care and support was provided.

New staff had received relevant induction training which was targeted and focussed on improving outcomes for people who used the service. This helped to ensure that the staff team had a good balance of skills, knowledge and experience to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Is the service caring?

We saw staff were attentive and respectful when speaking with or supporting people. People looked well cared for and appeared at ease with staff. The home had a relaxed and comfortable atmosphere. People told us staff were �exceptional.� One person said �the staff are wonderful; there is always something to occupy us, I have been learning the recorder and I sing in the choir.� And another person said �the staff are wonderful, it�s lovely here.�

Is the service responsive?

People's needs were met in accordance with their wishes. We saw evidence of the service ensuring people were able to continue with interests and hobbies; for example the residents choir and recorder group.

People we spoke with knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy.

People using the service, their relatives and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual survey. This enabled the manager to address any shortfalls or concerns.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system, and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better had been addressed promptly. As a result we could see that the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and the quality assurance systems in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service. They told us the manager was supportive and promoted positive team working.