Archived: Maefin Lodge

The home did not have a registered manager in post, as the provider is an individual who is considered a 'registered person.' Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

Risk assessments were not robust and care plans lacked detail on how support was provided. The knowledge of the staff supporting people was not captured in the documentation. This was brought to the attention of the registered provider who updated care plans and risk assessments to a good standard.

Records of care delivered were brief and task focussed. This meant that the service was not routinely capturing all the information about how people received support. We have made a recommendation about record keeping.

Staff did not fully understand the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and its implications for people living in the service. We have made a recommendation about understanding the MCA.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to maintain a balanced diet. The service provided culturally appropriate food to meet people's needs and preferences. Care plans were updated during the inspection to include information about specialist dietary requirements.

People were supported by trained staff to receive their medicines. Records showed these were managed in a safe way.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff employed by the service. Staff had been recruited safely with appropriate checks on their backgrounds completed.

Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding adults and knew how to protect people from harm. People told us they felt safe.

Staff received regular supervision and on-going training to support them to develop the skills and knowledge required for their role.

People were supported to have their health needs met. Records showed people were supported to attend appointments with healthcare professionals when required. Any advice from healthcare professionals was shared so that staff knew how to support people to maintain their health.

Staff were caring and had built up strong relationships with people living in the home. Staff and people living in the home had a shared cultural heritage which meant that cultural and language needs were met. People were supported to attend religious services of their choice.

Care files were reviewed regularly and records showed that people were involved in making decisions about their care. Preserving people's dignity and respecting people's right to make choices were embedded in care plans.

The service had various feedback mechanisms, including formal complaints, house meetings and feedback surveys. This meant the service routinely listened to and learnt from people's experiences.

The home had a strong open, and person centred culture. Staff and people living in the service knew each other well and the home had a relaxed and homely feel.

People and staff spoke highly of the registered provider and described her as supportive.

The registered provider conducted appropriate audits and checks on the service to ensure it was delivering consistent, good quality care.

We were sent training certificates that showed that staff had attended training. We spoke with all the staff that had undergone training and found that they could demonstrate understanding of the training they had attended. Each staff member had a plan in place to ensure that they would attend any outstanding training before April 2014.

We observed that the premises were in a good state of repair. Fire exits were unobstructed and staff were able to explain maintenance procedures that were in place.

Care plans were up to date and individual and included recommendations made by other professionals. Records were accurate and reflected the needs of people who used the service.

We checked the fridge and food supply and found the food to be in date and meeting people's cultural preferences. One person said, 'I like dumplings and sweet potato. Staff make it for me when I want." Another said, 'The food is good. I choose what I want in advance."

Staff had knowledge about the different types of abuse and how to report. However, staff had not attended any safeguarding training.

Staff were supported by the manager and attended regular supervision. We were concerned that staff did not have up to date training.