15 April 2014
During a routine inspection
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. 'The staff can't do enough for us'.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns and whistleblowing investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. The manager told us they take all incidents seriously and gave examples of where they had used experiences of incidents to adapt change. For example, making changes to menus to ensure people were provided with a more balanced diet.
The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Although no applications had needed to be submitted there had been 'best interest' meetings taking place and recorded to ensure peoples choices were being respected and actioned. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and in how to submit one. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required.
Maintenance service certificates were in place and up to date to ensure systems in the home were safe.
Is the service effective?
Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. This included specialist nutrition such as 'peg feeds', which ensured people who were unable to take a normal diet received nutritional aids to meet their needs.
People we spoke with told us the service was flexible to meet their individual needs. 'It suits what I want and the way I want to live. It's a nice place to live'
In order to deliver effective care the manager and staff demonstrated an understanding of the individual's needs of people living at the home. Staff we spoke with told us they worked well as a team to ensure peoples needs are being met. One said, 'We work well as a team and information is being passed down all the time'.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People we spoke with told us, 'All the staff are wonderful, very kind'. Also, 'It's nice to have the same staff around we all know them and they know us'.
People using the home, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed six monthly satisfaction surveys. The results were used to inform the development and quality of the service. Any issues highlighted were looked at and responded to in order to ensure the home was meeting quality standards.
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. We saw evidence of daily activities in place and delivered by various staff.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. The service has a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure people received a good quality service at all times.
There were a range of audits and systems put in place in by the manager and provider to monitor the quality of the service being provided.