23 May 2014
During a routine inspection
During the inspection we spoke with people using the service and staff. We also reviewed records, policies and procedures.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People using the service told us they felt safe. The service had appropriate safeguarding policies and procedures in place which staff were familiar with and understood. Staff received regular training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and had good knowledge about the types and signs of abuse and what to do if they had concerns about the safety of people using the service.
There were comprehensive risk assessments on all the files we reviewed, which identified risks and detailed how they should be managed. There were robust quality assurance systems to ensure that staff were able to learn from incidents and complaints.
Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The home had appropriate policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be made.
The manager complied with legal requirements to protect people from the risks of unsafe premises. The home was clean, hygienic and well maintained, as was the equipment used.
Is the service effective?
People's needs were appropriately assessed and their care planned with their input. The care plans we reviewed were detailed and personalised. Information included people's preferences and hobbies as well as health, dietary, mobility and equipment requirements. People using the service were satisfied with the quality of care they received. One person told us, 'I like living here, I don't want to live anywhere else.'
People's rooms were decorated and furnished to suit their personal taste, and reflected their social interests. People were supported to gain access to the community. One person told us, 'I don't like to go out much but I do go to church every week and I'm the DJ when they have discos.' People using the service had an advocate which meant that they had access to additional support to make informed decisions.
Staff had received recent training in all of the areas relevant to their work and had the skills, qualifications and experience to carry out their role effectively.
Is the service caring?
We observed that people were treated with dignity and respect by staff. Staff were attentive and patient throughout our inspection visit. People we spoke with told us the staff were caring. One person told us, 'They are here if I need them, they look after me.'
People's care plans considered all aspects of their individual circumstances and needs. People's care was organised so as to ensure a continuity of care. The service worked well with other healthcare professionals and social groups to ensure people's health, welfare and social needs were met.
Is the service responsive?
The service was sufficiently flexible to respond to people's unplanned for needs. People were aware of how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with their care and were confident that staff would respond to their requests. We saw evidence that activities and holidays were arranged at people's request. We saw evidence that staff responded promptly and appropriately when people's health was at risk of deterioration.
Is the service well-led?
The manager had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of service people received and to manage risk. Staff regularly sought people's views and systems were routinely audited to gather information on the quality of care provided.
We reviewed people's care records as well as records relating to the staff and the management of the service. The records we requested were appropriately stored, promptly located and well organised. This reduced the risk of people receiving unsafe or inappropriate care.