You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11 June 2014
Date of Publication: 19 July 2014
Inspection Report published 19 July 2014 PDF

Overview

Inspection carried out on 11 June 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 the 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.

In this report the name Miss Katey Marie Harding appears, who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of this inspection. Their name appears because they were still identified as the registered manager on our register at the time.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

The people we spoke with said they felt safe and comfortable in their home and were well cared for. One person told us, �I would recommend living here.�

We had received concerns from a person who wished to remain anonymous, who alleged that there were insufficient staffing levels to meet people�s needs. One person who used the service said that staff were always around if and when you need them. We observed that staff were available at all times to assist people when required. Another person who used the service told us, �The staff are marvellous you couldn�t ask for better.�

Discussions with the registered manager confirmed that the majority of people who used the service required assistance to take their prescribed medicines. We found that the management of medicines was not entirely robust. For example, one person told us that they had recently been prescribed a new medicine which they were able to take themselves. We found that this medicine had not been recorded. This meant that not all staff would be aware of the person�s current treatment and this could compromise the care the person received.

Care records contained risk assessments relating to people�s daily activities. This provided staff with information about how to promote people�s independence and ensure their safety whilst doing so. For example, one person who used the service told us about the level of support they required to mobilise and the equipment required. The risk assessment contained the information the person shared with us. We also found that staff were aware of the support this person required.

Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that people who used the service were protected from avoidable harm, abuse and breaches of their human rights.

Is the service effective?

We spoke with a relative who confirmed that an assessment of their relative�s needs was carried out before they were admitted to the home. They told us that they and their relative were involved in the assessment. The registered manager said that an assessment of people�s needs was carried out before a placement was offered to a person. This assessment enabled the registered manager to find out whether they had the capacity to meet the person�s needs before they were admitted to the home.

Is the service caring?

One person who used the service told us about the level of support they required to meet their needs. They confirmed that they were provided with the relevant support. We spoke with three care staff who demonstrated a good understanding about how to care for this person and others. This meant that people were assured that their care needs would be met. We observed that people were well cared for and that staff were attentive to people�s needs. For example, we saw a care staff sat with a person in the garden talking with them in kind manner and saw the care staff discretely rearrange the person�s clothing to preserve their dignity. One relative told us, �When staff walk into the room X�s face lights up, they are so well cared for.�

One person confirmed that they had access to other healthcare professionals when needed and this was also identified in the care plans we looked at. This meant that people could be confident that their physical and mental health care needs would be met.

Is the service responsive?

Prior to our inspection we had received a complaint about staffing levels within the home and the impact this had on the care people received. We had shared these concerns with the registered manager who was prompt in providing a written response to the concerns identified. During the inspection we found that this complaint had been recorded and showed what action had been taken to address this. This meant that complaints were taken seriously and acted on to improve the service provided to people.

People who used the service said that they had no complaints about the care and treatment they had received. However, they told us they would share any concerns with staff or the registered manager. One person told us, �If I had any complaints I would speak to the manager, they always sort things out.�

Is the service well-led?

The home was managed by a registered manager and a recently appointed deputy. We found that they both had a good understanding of people�s care needs. The people we spoke with who used the service, relatives and staff were complimentary about the way the home was run, to ensure people received an effective service.

The registered manager told us that they had various audits in place to monitor the quality of service provided to people and we saw these. The people we spoke with confirmed that they were happy with the service they had received.

The registered manager told us that meetings were carried out with people who used the service and their relatives and this was confirmed by the people we spoke with. Access to these meetings gave people the opportunity to have say about how the home was run.