We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
Is the service safe?
People told us they felt safe living at Lansglade House. We found they were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. People's needs had been assessed, and risk assessments described how any identified risks to people were minimised. The service had sufficient staff that were knowledgeable about people's care and support needs.
We saw that equipment was well maintained and checked on a regular basis and the premises were fit for purpose and safe for the people who used them. We found that as part of the pre admission information, staff obtained information about people's needs to ensure that appropriate rooms could be given to them. This was to ensure, that the person's bedroom was big enough to manoeuvre a hoist safely.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs had been assessed, both pre admission and on a regular basis thereafter. We found that robust care plans were in place. People told us that they were happy with the care that had been provided and their needs had been met with kindness.
We saw that staff had received training to support people with various care needs. Some of the people had complex needs that meant they were not able to understand their care plans, we saw that where appropriate, these had been discussed with relatives so that all planned care and support was understood.
We found that the service provided people with adequate nutritious food and drink that ensured they maintained good health.
It was clear from our observations that staff had a good understanding of the needs of the people who used the service. We found that care plans were written in a 'person centred' style which reflected people's individual personal needs and preferences. Activities were offered on a daily basis and there was a 'friends' association which offered additional activities and raised funds.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind, courteous and attentive staff. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with the staff, that they had a good understanding of the needs of the people living in the home and knew them well. We saw that staff were able to communicate effectively with people with limited verbal communication and to meet their needs with respect and dignity.
One person who used the service told us, 'I cannot be at home, I know that, but being here is the next best thing.' We observed numerous examples of positive interactions between staff and people who used the service. Staff showed patience and understanding and encouraged people to be as independent as possible.
Is the service responsive to people's needs?
We observed that staff responded very promptly to people's needs, both physical and social. We saw that care plans and risk assessments had been updated when people's needs had changed, and that referrals had been made to other health and social care professionals when required. The service took account of individual preferences, and supported them to access a variety of activities.
We spoke with four people who used the service. They were all happy with the care received. One person said, 'They always listen, I only have to say something and it is done. You cannot ask for more than that.'
Is the service well-led?
The service had a registered manager in post and we found that they managed the service well. Quality assurance processes were in place to ensure that people received a good quality service. We saw that the provider had effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service they provided. They regularly sought the views of people using the service and their representatives by listening to them, and took account of their feedback to improve the service.
Records showed that staff had attended both mandatory and specific training to help them carry out their duties, and were supported with regular supervisions by the manager. We were told that the manager was very approachable to both people and staff. This meant that the service was able to benefit from a well- led team of staff, who worked together to meet the needs of the people who used the service.