Archived: Culverley Care Home

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

When we last inspected the service in September 2013 we found that the provider had not ensured that recruitment procedures were safe. We asked for improvements to be made. At this inspection we confirmed that all the required checks on staff had been undertaken before they started work. People were protected from the risk of receiving care from staff who were unsuitable.

On this visit people told us that they felt safe and trusted the staff. People and their relatives told us there were always sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs. People received a consistent and safe level of support.

We saw evidence that the provider had undertaken the appropriate checks in relation to managing risks to people's health and safety. For example, audits were carried out on various aspects of the service, including stocks of medication, fire safety arrangements, water and food temperatures and fridge and freezer temperatures.

People received their medicines safely as prescribed. Records showed that staff had supported people to receive all their medicines correctly at the right time of day.

The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Although no DoLS applications had been made, the provider was able to describe the circumstances when an application should be made and knew how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

People's needs had been assessed and they had an individual care plan which set out how the service supported them. People told us they received their care in the way they wished. Care plans promoted people's independence by specifying what tasks they could undertake on their own. People received their care in accordance with these plans. The service had ensured people had seen a range of health care professionals to meet their health needs.

People told us that staff were skilled and knew how to care for them well. The provider had ensured staff had received relevant training in topics such as caring for people with dementia.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. A person's relative said, 'I visit my relative regularly and the staff group is small. It is like a family. They know people very well as they have been in the home for some time. From what I have seen they are always patient and polite to people in the home.' The staff of the home knew people well and were aware of their preferences. We saw that people were given individual support from staff in accordance with their wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People told us they were asked how they would like to be cared for. Their care was planned and delivered in accordance with their wishes.

People were able to participate in a range of activities. One person said, "stuff is laid on but you don't have to join in if you don't want to." People had been asked about what trips they would like to undertake and went out of the home from time to time.

Is the service well-led?

The provider of the home is also the registered manager of the home. He had ensured that people's personal care records, and other records kept in the home, were accurate and complete. Regular meetings were held with staff and people who use the service to obtain their views. The provider had worked in cooperation with the local authority to analyse incidents and to identify improvements to the service.

We were unable to speak to relatives on the day of inspection. We spoke to two care workers and the registered manager. We observed activities of skittles and board games during the day of inspection. People readily engaged in these activities.

Before people received care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. People needs had been identified and recorded in their care plans which enabled staff to provide the required support for each person. The provider had taken adequate steps to protect people from the risks of abuse. We found that that the recruitment process was inadequate as there were insufficient checks with regard to staff's suitability to work at the home before offering a contract of work. We saw that there was adequate information about how to complain.

Staff responded well to the immediate needs of people using the service. People were treated with care and consideration, although at the meal time staff were more focussed on tasks than the people being cared for. For example, food and drinks were placed in front of people without staff speaking to the individual and explaining what they were receiving. However, staff engaged well with people during the activities session.

There were care plans in place for people using the service and these were regularly reviewed. People were asked for their views and consent to care; and if unable to give consent then the views of relatives or commissioners of the service were sought.

Staff received training in the prevention of abuse. However, not all staff showed sufficient knowledge of safeguarding.

The quality of the service was being monitored on an ongoing basis however there was no evidence to show that action was taken to improve the service based on the findings.