You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 28 August 2014
Date of Publication: 7 October 2014
Inspection Report published 07 October 2014 PDF | 83.12 KB


Inspection carried out on 28 August 2014

During a routine inspection

At the time of the inspection there were 8 people living at the home. 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 and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. At the time of the inspection the registered manager for the service had left without cancelling their registration with us. Their name appears on this report. However, a new manager was in place and in the process of registering with us and this is who we refer to when we use the term 'manager' in the report.

Is the service safe?

We observed staff working with people in a way that respected people�s rights and dignity. Staff knew about people�s risk management plans and people were not put at unnecessary risk. One person told us �staff make sure I don�t fall."

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 improve.

The systems in place ensured people were given medicines safely.

Staffing levels were being calculated based upon the levels of people�s risks and needs within the home.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy at the home and liked their rooms. One person told us, �I like this place� and another person told us, �I think it�s ok really." People told us about the various activities they were supported to do. One person told us, �I go out Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. We go down Fishponds, Kingswood, draw money out. I go out with (staff member). We get on ok."

It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they understood people well and the support they provided met people�s individual needs.

Where people did not have capacity to consent to care, policies were not being followed to assess their capacity in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to people�s capacity to make decisions about their care and support.

Is the service caring?

We observed staff interacting with people in a kind and attentive way, encouraging them to be as independent as possible. People told us they thought staff were �alright�.

People�s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people�s wishes. One person told us, �It�s up to me what videos I have in my bedroom. I choose what clothes to wear."

Is the service responsive?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a coherent way.

We noted that where one person�s behaviour had been changing, a health specialist had been alerted and was now involved in monitoring the person�s behaviour. This meant that the home was adapting to the person�s fluctuating needs and staff had enlisted support to enable them to keep the person and others in the home safe.

We noted that people�s care plans were reviewed and amended as people�s needs changed. This meant that staff had up to date information about how best to support people.

Is the service well-led?

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and where issues arose these were escalated and actioned appropriately.

Records such as the complaints folder showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better were addressed promptly.