Archived: Alba Rose

This inspection took place on 22nd May 2017 and was unannounced. A second day of inspection took place on 6 June 2017 and this was announced.

At the last inspection in December 2014, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Staff understood the procedure they needed to follow if they suspected abuse might be taking place. Risks to people were identified and plans were put in place to help manage the risk and minimise them occurring. Medicines were managed safely with an effective system in place. Staff competencies, around administering medication, were regularly checked.

There was sufficient staff on duty. On the day of inspection there was one senior and three care workers to support 20 people. The registered manager was also at the service but was not included in staffing number. Staff had time to provide one to one support and respond to people in a timely manner.

People were supported by a regular team of staff who were knowledgeable about their likes, dislikes and preferences. Most staff had completed up to date training although we did identify some staff who had not completed training in safeguarding and the Mental Capacity Act. Supervision sessions had been delivered by the registered manager to cover shortfalls in such training.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff supported people to maintain their health and attend routine health care appointments and people were able to choose meals of their choice.

We found the provider had continued to provide a highly responsive service. People were actively involved in the development of their care plans and the areas that mattered to each individual the most. People worked with staff to develop specific instructions to guide staff on how they wished for the support to be delivered. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they contained up to date information that was meeting people’s care needs.

The emphasis was upon meaningful engagement which enhanced quality of life and helped people feel worthwhile and fulfilled. Each person had identified areas of interest within their care plan and was supported to pursue these.

People who used the service had access to a wide range of activities and leisure opportunities. They were encouraged to continue to participate in activities and hobbies that they had enjoyed prior to admission to the service.

The service had a clear process for handling complaints which the registered manager had followed.

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and felt supported by the registered manager. Quality assurance processes were in place and regularly carried out by the registered manager to monitor and improve the quality of the service.

The service worked with various health and social care agencies and sought professional advice to ensure individual needs were being met.

Feedback was sought from people who used the service through regular ‘resident meetings’ and feedback forms. This information was analysed and action plans produced when needed.

Further information is in the detailed findings below:

Staff told us that they could discuss any concerns openly at supervisions and meetings, and they were given support by the management team. We were given a copy of the supervision schedule for the service. There was evidence of supervision taking place six times a year, covering subjects such as care, infection control and medication and were evaluated to identify training needs.

Staff told us they were supported to ensure they kept their skills up to date through regular training.

The home was found to be clean and there were audits in place to ensure staff kept up to date with all the cleaning tasks identified.

We saw evidence to show that staff had received training in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. Employment checks had been carried out to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

We saw evidence that the provider and manager regularly audit the work carried out by staff. This ensured people received the care and support they required.

People who used the service were provided with a four week menu in their rooms. Staff told us the menus were chosen by people who used the service and there was a choice at all the meals.

People received their medication in line with their care plan and staff had received training in the 'safe handling of medication'.

We saw that the organisation had recruitment and induction policies for staff and that checks had been made to keep people who use the service safe.

People who lived at the home told us that staff did their best to help them resolve any concerns or complaints. Two people told us, 'I have never had any complaints but I could speak to any of the staff if I had'.