Archived: Southleigh Residential Home

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking to people using the service, staff supporting them and from looking at records. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with dignity and respect by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure the managers and staff learnt from events such as complaints and concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. 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 how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

People's healthcare needs were assessed with them and they were involved in writing their care plans. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. People said they had been involved in writing them and they reflected their current needs.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, 'I love the staff here they help me a lot. They take me out and help me feel happy'.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded. Care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People regularly completed a range of activities inside and outside of the home. All people enjoyed having trips out and were supported in their choice of outings.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. No one we spoke to felt the need to make a complaint as they were very happy with the service they received. We looked at how complaints had been dealt with and found the responses had been open, thorough and timely. People could therefore be assured that complaints were investigated and action was taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure that people received their care in a joined up way. The service had a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls had been addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities.

We met and spoke to all the five people who used the service. We checked the provider's records. We looked at other records and observed staff working with people. We also spoke with the registered manager by phone and the owner. We were able to discuss the care provided with two visiting relatives. One relative said, 'I have no concerns about the care my relative receives'.

We saw and heard staff speak to people in a way that demonstrated a good understanding of people's choices and preferences. We saw that the staff had a good understanding of people's individual needs and that they respected people's privacy and dignity.

The staff demonstrated they had a good understanding of what kinds of things might constitute abuse, and knew where they should go to report any suspicions they may have had.

During our visit to the home we saw sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of people living in the home. We saw staff received the training they required to carry out their roles.

We saw records that showed that best interest meetings had been discussed to determine whether people were able to make particular decisions about their lives.

One person when asked said about the home, 'I am happy living here'.

People who were able to speak to us said that they liked living at Southleigh. One person said " The staff are nice and help me"

People's choices and privacy were respected, however, some of the support provided and documentation by staff did not ensure that people were always treated in a respectful and dignified manner.

Care records were up to date but did not in all cases provide sufficient detail to ensure that support was delivered in a consistent manner.

People were supported to access health services and prompt action was taken by staff to address any changing health needs.

Staff were aware of issues relating to abuse and systems were in place to ensure that any incidents of abuse were recognised, reported and acted on to keep people safe.

People were supported to maintain contact with family and friends and to access a range of leisure and educational opportunities within the local community.

Systems were in place to regularly review the quality of the service and we saw examples of changes that had been made as a result of feedback. These included changes to the menu, activities and people's choice of key-workers.