A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.
If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report. This is a summary of what we found:
Is the service safe?
Where staff had identified a potential risk, either during the initial assessment or after admission, we found that a risk assessment had been completed to ensure people were safe. We saw that the risk assessment clearly identified the potential hazards and the control measures in place to manage the risk. The provider had developed policies and procedures in relation to safeguarding adults. We viewed these policies and saw that they contained information for staff to refer to about safeguarding, such as what constituted abuse, key responsibilities and how to report concerns. The provider had a system for logging and investigating safeguarding concerns.
The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We saw that DoLS had been submitted appropriately and relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made.
Is the service effective?
Each person had individual support plans which set out their specific care needs and people had been involved in the assessment and planning of their care. Relatives we spoke with told us they were also involved in the planning of care.
We saw that support plans and risk assessments were up to date and reflected people’s individual needs and we observed staff supporting people in a caring and sensitive way.
A family member told us, “Staff are friendly. They keep me involved on a regular basis."
There was an advocacy service available if people needed it, this meant that when required people could access additional support.
We found that care records had been written using a person-centred approach. This meant that they described the person’s abilities and how they preferred their care needs to be met.
Staff we spoke with told us the managers were approachable and accessible at all times. The provider had systems in place to ensure that staff training was kept up to date.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by calm and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when assisting people. We saw people were supported to enjoy their meals at their own pace. We saw staff spent time chatting with people about their interests in a warm and engaging manner.
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw staff were skilled at understanding people’s individual communication methods. Staff guided people in a way that supported them to retain their dignity. Staff told us they knew what interested people by reading what was written in the persons care plan and also spending time with them. Staff gave us examples of preferences of people watching DVD films, one person enjoyed making cards and also people enjoyed going out for a walk at the coast.
Our observations of the care provided and discussions with people showed us that individual wishes for care and support were taken into account.
Is the service responsive?
People were given the chance to make decisions for themselves. Records showed that people's preferences, interests and needs had been taken into account and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
We saw that where necessary people had been referred to other professionals. For example, we saw one person had been referred to the challenging behaviour team.
Family members we spoke with were aware of how to make a complaint but they did not raise any complaints or concerns with us about their relative’s care. A family member told us, “No complaints. They are doing a grand job."
Is the service well led?
The provider had a system to assure the quality of the service they provided. The way the service was run had been regularly reviewed. A range of checks were carried out including care records, medication and the environment for people who lived there. A cluster manager from another service carried out at least monthly visits to audit the systems and procedures at the home.
The manager held regular team meetings with staff. Regular checks of the premises took place to ensure it was safe and suitable for the people who lived there. Staff were properly supported by the manager and received training relevant to their role.