You are here

Archived: Cricklade House Residential Home

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 30 July 2014
Date of Publication: 2 September 2014
Inspection Report published 02 September 2014 PDF | 80.46 KB

Overview

Inspection carried out on 30 July 2014

During a routine inspection

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?

We spoke with people who used the service, a relative of a person using the service and an advocate for one person living at the home. Additionally we spoke with two members of care staff and the provider who is registered to manage the home.

We viewed records including care records of two people, staff recruitment and training records and policies and procedures.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, those acting on their behalf and staff told us and what we observed.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Procedures were in place to protect people from abuse. We found staff had been trained and were able to respond appropriately to allegations or suspicions of abuse or neglect.

Records showed people experienced safe and appropriate care. Their needs had been assessed and their care and treatment planned and delivered in accordance with individualised care and risk-management plans. For example, staff followed guidance in care plans to minimise risk of falls when people were mobilising around the home.

We found staff recruitment procedures to be effective and safe. People were being cared for by suitably qualified, skilled and competent staff.

The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). At the time of our inspection no one was subject to a DoLS authorisation or application.

Procedures were in place for dealing with emergencies and staff were suitably trained to ensure people’s safety and welfare.

Is the service effective?

A person living at the home told us, “They are alright here, they are nice and they look after me.” Feedback from those acting on behalf of people was very positive about the home and standards of care. Our findings evidenced people experienced effective, safe and appropriate care. Treatment and support met their needs and respected their rights.

People’s needs had been assessed and individualised care plans were produced. These were centred on people's needs and wishes. The assessments and care plans addressed people’s physical, communication, emotional and social needs. They showed staff promoted and respected people’s diversity, privacy and spiritual beliefs. Provision was made of meals a person enjoyed, acknowledging their cultural preferences. People were able to continue practicing their religious beliefs. Staff were observed to respect people’s dignity by ensuring intimate personal care needs were met in the privacy of bedrooms, toilets and bathrooms.

Is the service caring?

A relative and advocate of people gave positive feedback about staff and said were caring. People were dressed in clean clothing they had chosen and were appropriate for the hot weather conditions. Attention had been given to their personal hygiene and grooming. We found staff to be knowledgeable about people’s preferences, for example, their choice of food and beverages and these were accommodated. We saw high levels of engagement between staff and people. Staff cared for them with warmth, dignity and compassion, creating a nurturing, friendly environment. People appeared happy and were responsive to staff and each other.

Records contained information gathered about people’s social and family networks, interests and hobbies. Activities both in the home and community had been organised to accommodate people’s interests. This demonstrated staff understood and respected people’s lifetime experiences and interests.

Is the service responsive?

We found staff understood people's individual communication methods, enabling choice in their daily lives. They were attentive to people, engaging them in social interactions and stimulating activities underpinned by reminiscent techniques. We saw staff respected the wishes of people not to participate in organised activities.

Those acting on behalf of people told us the staff worked collaboratively with them, professionals and other agencies, ensuring people received care in a coherent way. This information was also evidenced by records.

A relative and an advocate of people said they were aware of the home's complaint procedure. They stated the provider was approachable and accessible to them when they visited.

Is the service well-led?

Discussions with the provider and care staff confirmed they understood their roles and responsibilities. The provider gave staff clear direction and guidance, overseeing their practice and the home’s operation on a daily basis. For this reason systems used for quality monitoring and management of risk were informal, though effective.