30 June 2014
During a routine inspection
Is the service safe?
Is the service effective?
Is the service caring?
Is the service responsive?
Is the service well-led
This is a summary of what we found:
Is the service safe?
We looked at four care plans which included the necessary information to inform staff as to the specific care people required. They also included risk assessments associated with specific elements of people's care, such as falling or tripping, using steps or self-neglect and specified the action required to manage those risks.
We found people who use the service were safe and protected from the risk of abuse because staff were aware of the need to report abuse between people who used the service to the appropriate authority.
Systems were in place to ensure the manager and staff learnt from events such as complaints, concerns, or safeguarding events. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve. The home had up to date policies and procedures in relation to safeguarding and whistleblowing.
The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs). Relevant staff had received training to enable them to understand when an application should be made. At the time of our inspection nobody in the home was subject to DoLs.
The manager ensured there were enough staff working at the home to meet people's care needs.
Is the service effective?
The care plans we looked at were personalised to reflect people's individual needs and their likes and dislikes. The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they were receiving and their needs had been met. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with the staff that they had a good understanding of the people's care and support needs and they knew them well.
Staff had received training to ensure they had the skills necessary to care for people. Staff told us about the care they were providing for specific people which matched information in the person's care plan.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. People said they had no concerns over how they were treated and they felt their privacy and dignity were respected. The records we looked at showed staff took account of people's individual wishes and these were respected, when providing care. We observed care in the communal areas of the home and saw staff interacting with people in a positive way.
People's diversity, values and human rights were respected. We looked in people's bedrooms and saw they were individualised and appropriate for the person's needs. Staff respected people's privacy and we saw them knock and wait before entering a person's bedroom.
People's wellbeing was enhanced through the availability of individual and group activities focussed on people's preferences, interests and diverse needs.
Is the service responsive?
There were arrangements in place to respond to short term staff absences, which were managed through the use of overtime and the provider's own bank staff.
We saw there was an effective compliments and complaints policy in place, which was published in the service users' guide. The manager showed us their complaints file and told us they had not received any formal complaints during the last year. The people and visitors we spoke with told us they knew how to complain but had not needed to do so.
Is the service well-led?
There was a clear management structure. There were also procedures in place to monitor the quality of service provided with audits of care plans, medication administration records (MAR), accidents and incidents and infection control. Where an issue was identified remedial action was taken.
A regular questionnaire was sent out to people, their friends and families seeking their views on the service provided. The manager told us the latest questionnaire was sent out a week before our inspection and so far they had only received one response. We looked at that response and saw the feedback was positive.
Staff attended regular supervision meetings and there was an effective staff meeting structure in place, where staff could raise any issues or concerns.