During our visit, we spoke with one of the four people who used the service. They shared some of their experiences at the home. Due to medical conditions, some others were not able to describe their experiences in detail. Some people were on holiday at the time of our visit. We spoke with two members of care staff and the manager.One inspector carried out the inspection. We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask:
Is the service safe?
Is the service effective?
Is the service caring?
Is the service responsive?
Is the service well led?
This is a summary of what we found.
Is the service safe?
We saw people were being cared for in an environment which was clean and safe. Processes for the prevention and control of infection were in place. For health, safety and security reasons, visitors were asked to sign on entering and leaving the home. There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living at the home at the time of our visit.
The people we spoke with who used the service told us they felt safe. One person said 'I feel safe. I've never seen anything which made me feel anxious.'
Discussion with staff and examination of records confirmed a programme of training was in place for all members of staff.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The aim is to make sure people in care homes and hospitals are looked after in a way which does not restrict their freedom inappropriately. Staff had all received training about the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards so they understood when an application should be made and how to submit one.
Is the service effective?
People's health, social and care needs were assessed with them and they were involved in writing and reviewing their care plans. Specialist needs had been identified in care plans, for example, ways to communicate. Care plans were reviewed every three months and when people's needs changed.
The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the support they received and said their needs were met. They spoke positively about the staff who supported them. From what we saw and from speaking with staff it was clear they had a good understanding of the care and support needs of the people who used the service.
We saw a written statement of purpose was available for people, which also comprised a service user guide and contained comprehensive information about the care and services provided at the home. The provider may wish to consider providing this document in an easy read or pictorial format to help make it easy to understand for people who used the service.
Is the service caring?
People we spoke with told us they liked living at the home. Comments included 'It's nice, I like living here'.
We saw the staff showed patience and gave encouragement when they were supporting people. This meant people were able to do things at their own pace and were not rushed.
Is the service responsive?
The records we saw confirmed people's preferences and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. People had access to activities which were important to them and had been supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.
Is the service well-led?
We saw documentary evidence which showed the service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.
From speaking with staff we found they had a good understanding of the home's values. They told us about their roles and responsibilities and they were clear about these. We saw quality assurance processes were in place to make sure the provider monitored the care provided and made improvements where necessary. For example, people who used the service had the opportunity to express their opinions through individual service user meetings.