We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the questions we always ask; Is the service safe? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?This is a summary of what we found-
Is the service safe?
People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people were be safeguarded as required.
The service was safe, clean and hygienic. One person said, "My clothes are always clean and they clean my room every day'.
The registered manager produced the staff rotas which took people's care needs into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped to ensure that people's needs were always met.
Procedures were in place for the management of medicines. Staff administering medicine had received regular training. This meant that people were protected against risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. Some people did not always understand what a care plan was but expressed that staff helped them in the way they wanted.
People's needs were taken into account with signage and the layout of the service enabling people to move around freely and safely. A call system was available throughout the home to enable people to request help. The premises were not suitable for people with significant mobility needs.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, 'Staff will always help', 'They [staff] are brilliant' and 'I am very happy here, I have no complaints'.
People using the service, their relatives and friends completed an annual satisfaction survey. This information had been analysed to identify areas for improvement.
People's preferences, likes, dislikes and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
We saw staff respond quickly to meet people's needs. This was also confirmed by people we spoke with. People had the opportunity to engage in a range of activities.
People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint if they were unhappy. People told us that they had no complaints and were happy with the care they received.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. Staff expressed 'It was like one big family" and 'Home from home.'
The service had a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.