You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 20 May 2014
Date of Publication: 24 June 2014
Inspection Report published 24 June 2014 PDF | 102.61 KB

Overview

Inspection carried out on 20 May 2014

During a routine inspection

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 staff told us, what we observed and records we looked at.

Is the service caring?

People's needs were not always fully assessed and care and treatment was not always fully planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Planned activities were not available on a daily basis and there was no designated activities co-ordinator.

Is the service effective ?

Staff did not receive appropriate training, professional development, supervision and appraisal. There were no systems currently in place for regular supervision or appraisal of staff.

Is the service safe?

The provider had made suitable arrangements to ensure that equipment was properly maintained and suitable for its purpose. There were effective procedures in place for managing foreseeable emergencies. There were ineffective policies and procedures in place to protect people using the service from the risk of abuse, and from the risk and spread of infection.

Is the service responsive?

There were no formal systems in place to seek and learn from people’s experiences, comments and complaints. Staff did not receive appropriate training, professional development, supervision and appraisal.

Is the service well-led?

There were ineffective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the services provided, and to identify, assess and manage risks relating to the health, welfare and safety of service users and others who may be at risk. There was no evidence to support monitoring review and amendments made to policies. A proactive approach to seeking feedback about the service was not in place and feedback had not been acted upon.