You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 1 September 2014
Date of Publication: 24 September 2014
Inspection Report published 24 September 2014 PDF

Overview

Inspection carried out on 1 September 2014

During a routine inspection

Our inspection team was made up of a single inspector. We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we had inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Safe.

People were treated with dignity and respect by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

People who used the service told us "I am extremely happy here it�s much better than my old place. I love the staff they always make me laugh and giggle ". Another person said "I love it here. I come and go as I please but it�s lovely to know I have the care and support when I need it�.

Systems were in place to make sure that the managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. 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. The Registered Manager had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. The staff however had not received formal safeguard training since 2005. This led us to look at other training as a whole. When questioned they demonstrated knowledge of correct procedure for reporting any concerns. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

The deputy manager set the staff rotas which took people�s care needs into account when making decisions about numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. However this had proved more difficult to achieve in the weeks preceding the inspection due to people's care need increasing. We saw evidence that the deputy manager was doing their best to ensure people�s care needs were always met.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected

Adaptations and improvements to the home had been performed over the years by the provider to make the home and accommodation safer and more wheel-chair accessible. Therefore it was clear that the provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained and had future maintenance jobs planned.

Is the service effective?

People's healthcare needs were assessed with them and they were involved in writing their care plans. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. People said they had been involved in writing them and they reflected their current needs.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, �The staff here are brilliant they are so helpful and caring�.

People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service were completing annual satisfaction surveys. We saw the results were very positive.

People�s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People had regularly completed a wide range of activities inside and outside of the home with help and support of the staff where required.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. No one we spoke to felt the need to make a complaint as they were very happy with the service they received. We looked at how complaints had been dealt with and found that the responses had been open, thorough and timely. People could therefore be assured that complaints were investigated and action was taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure that people received the care they needed. We saw evidence that staff were receiving extra training to help cater for people's deteriorating care needs.

The service had an external quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls had been addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities.