You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 18 August 2014
Date of Publication: 20 September 2014
Inspection Report published 20 September 2014 PDF

Overview

Inspection carried out on 18 August 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?

Some of the people using the service had complex needs and this meant they were unable to tell us directly about their experience. The summary below describes what three people using the service, a relative, three care staff and the registered manager told us, what we observed and the documents and records we looked at.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect by the staff and their dignity was upheld.

Two people we spoke with told us they felt safe, and were supported by staff in making their own decisions. This was confirmed by the four care plans seen and through observation and discussion with care staff.

CQC monitors the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which applies to care homes. No applications had been submitted and we found that no one was subject to restrictions on their liberty.

The registered manager and care staff had attended training in safeguarding people and were aware of the principles underpinning the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and DoLS. We saw care records which showed that the registered manager had recently coordinated an assessment of the capacity of one person to make a decision with regard to their prescribed medicine. This demonstrated that the registered manager was aware that the assessment was needed, and of the rights of the individual to make that decision.

People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition because their needs were assessed and appropriate support was provided.

Is the service effective?

People had their needs assessed. Care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure they remained effective, and were kept up to date to reflect the changing needs of people. Care plans seen did not always include all the information known by the care staff about people�s needs and preferences.

Whilst people clearly received good care we found that there were areas where independence was not encouraged and promoted, so that people could have done more for themselves to maintain and develop their skills.

Staff had received training to enable them to meet the specific needs of people living at Camellots. One person told us, �Give them their due, it�s good here.�

Is the service caring?

Three people we spoke with told us they were well cared for and their needs were met. From speaking with staff and observing how they supported people it was clear that they knew people well and understood their needs. This was especially evident where people had complex needs and were unable to communicate verbally. Staff were attentive and responded promptly to non-verbal communication.

We saw that care staff supported people in way that was unhurried.

A relative told us, "It's very homely and welcoming here".

People were safe and their care and welfare needs were met because there were effective systems in place to ensure staff were competent to do their jobs.

Is the service responsive?

Two people told us they were able to do what they wanted to do when they wanted. One person said, �I can have breakfast more or less when I want it. I like it after 6�.

We saw that the care and support provided for people was flexible according to their preferences at the time. Care staff were sensitive to people�s changing moods.

People's views about the service were regularly sought in ways appropriate to their individual communication needs.

Is the service well-led?

Staff had a good understanding of the values that underpinned the care provided at the home. There were quality assurance processes in place including audits, monitoring visits and surveys.

People were cared for by staff who were trained and well supported. We spoke with the registered manager and the three care staff on duty, all of whom said they felt supported by their managers.