You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 7 August 2014
Date of Publication: 18 September 2014
Inspection Report published 18 September 2014 PDF | 82.69 KB


Inspection carried out on 7 August 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions: is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

We met with several people who were staying in the home and spoke with 15 people, five visitors including relatives and seven members of staff. The director and the registered manager were present at the time of our inspection.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People felt involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. The care plans were detailed and reflected their needs and preferences as to how they wanted the care to be delivered. A person said, “They look after us wonderfully well. We get as much care as we require.”

The provider had an effective recruitment and selection process. This had ensured people were safely cared for and supported by skilled and experienced staff.

People were cared for in a clean and comfortable environment, which was well maintained and secure. A visitor said, “The place is always fresh and clean.” Another visitor commented, “The front door is always locked and we have to press the doorbell each time we visit and a member of staff lets us in.”

Equipment had been appropriately checked and serviced. Fire equipment had been serviced regularly. Each person who used the service had a personal evacuation plan which had been regularly reviewed and updated as their needs had changed.

Staff understood what constituted abuse and had received training on the protection of vulnerable adults. They knew the procedures they would follow if they had concerns about safeguarding issues.

The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which apply to care homes. Staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and DoLS and had an understanding of when an application under DoLS should be made and how to submit one to be authorised by the local authority. There had been no DoLS applications since the last inspection.

Is the service effective?

People we spoke with confirmed they led independent lives and staff gave support and assistance when needed. A member of staff said, “Most of the people here are able to do things for themselves. We encourage them to lead an independent lifestyle.”

Staff interacted well with people. They had knowledge of people’s care needs and assisted them accordingly. Staff had received appropriate training to enable them to meet people’s needs and had ensured people’s personal, social and healthcare needs were closely monitored and met. Reviews of people’s care needs and risk assessments had been carried out regularly, where appropriate.

A person commented “They look after us extremely well. When you are ill, they are there for you.”

Is it caring?

People we spoke with were all complimentary about the staff and the care provided. One person said, “All the staff are very good.” One person’s visitor commented, “The staff are attentive; they are quick to help and they are always respectful.” Another person’s friend commented, “Staff are excellent in what they do and they really care for the people here.”

We observed the interaction of staff with people throughout the day, including during mealtimes and during activity sessions. The staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of people’s needs, their daily routine and their preferences and were therefore well able to meet their needs. A person remarked, “The staff are gentle, patient and respectful, as always.” Another person said, “The staff are kind and warm.”

One person’s visitor said, “Every time I visit, the staff are friendly and polite. They check on my friend in their bedroom every so often to make sure my friend is all right. The staff are very good.”

People’s well-being had been promoted by taking account of their physical needs, including nutrition and hydration. There was a selection of soft drinks, desserts and fresh fruits for people to help themselves. A person said, “The food served is satisfactory; I must say the food is quite good today. It’s rice with sweet and sour pork and a dish of mixed vegetables. It’s so nice I can help myself to a second helping.”

Is the service responsive?

People were treated with respect and dignity and were encouraged to get involved in making decisions. They had been encouraged to attend residents’ meetings, where views and opinions had been welcomed and discussed and action had been taken to improve the service. The weekly activity records were detailed and reflected each person’s preferences and lifestyle.

People’s care plans reflected their wishes and preferences as to how they wanted care to be delivered. The care records showed people’s needs had been assessed and regularly reviewed. This enabled staff to provide appropriate care and treatment.

Is the service well-led?

People and relatives were complimentary about the service and the care provided. Annual surveys and monthly audits had been carried out as part of the provider’s quality monitoring process. Shortfalls had been promptly addressed to improve the service.

Staff had a good understanding of the provider’s ethos in providing a care service. There was a clear reporting structure and staff had clearly defined job descriptions, with clear responsibilities. Staff were well supported through staff appraisals, supervision meetings and monthly team meetings. Each member of staff had a personal development plan.