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?We observed the care provided and the interaction between staff and people who used the service. We spoke with eight people, five care staff and one relative of a person who used the service.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and 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?
People told us they felt safe. We observed that staff were supervising people to ensure they were safe. People were treated with respect and dignity. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Care records contained risk assessments which provided guidance to staff on action to take to keep people safe. However, we found that although the home had relevant policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards ( DoLS), their requirements had not been applied in the case of two individuals receiving care from the provider. We saw a number of restrictions for both people which could amount to a deprivation of liberty. This had not been recognised by staff and no action had been taken to refer the people to the local authority for an assessment so their rights were safeguarded.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. People's likes and dislikes were documented and staff we spoke with were aware of these. People's care plans contained assessments and up to date plans of care with details of routines and the type of care to be provided. Where risks had been identified measures were in place to minimise the risk.
Is the service caring?
People told us that staff were pleasant and took good care of them. One person told us, 'I'm happy here. The food is very nice and staff are brilliant.' We observed that people who used the service were well cared for. We saw staff attending to people, and people were able to approach staff freely and came to them when they needed help. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and their diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
We observed that staff were attentive towards people and when people needed help or attention, staff responded immediately. We saw that the provider had responded positively to feedback from other stakeholders, however one person told us that the service's responsiveness could be improved. They said 'There's a tendency to be told what to do here, and not to listen.'
Is the service well-led?
The home had a registered manager who was knowledgeable about their role and responsibilities. There were arrangements in place for monitoring the quality of care provided. Records showed that any identified shortfalls were addressed in a timely manner. For example, the provider responded to stakeholder feedback by implementing good financial management strategies in order to reduce potential for abuse.