Archived: The Bungalow

At the last inspection in October 2014, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Relatives felt their family member was safe at the service. Staff were knowledgeable about the safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs who were employed through safe recruitment processes. Risk assessments were carried out and management plans put in place to enable people to receive safe care. People received their medicines correctly and as prescribed.

Staff received support through supervisions and training opportunities. The provider was aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and staff were knowledgeable about how to obtain consent. People were supported to eat a nutritionally balanced diet and had access to healthcare professionals as required to meet their day-to-day health needs.

Relatives thought staff were caring. People received care that promoted their privacy and dignity and maintained their independence. Staff were aware of equality and diversity issues.

Staff were aware of people’s support needs and their preferences. A variety of activities were offered and each person had their own weekly activity timetable. The provider had a detailed complaints policy and relatives knew how to make a complaint but had not needed to.

There was a registered manager at the service. Relatives and staff spoke positively about the organisation and the management team. The provider had regular meetings with staff and with people who used the service. People and relatives were asked to give feedback on the service. The provider had various quality assurance systems and issues identified were used to improve the quality of the service provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

People we spoke with who were able told us they liked living at the service. We found people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

People we spoke to who were able to told us they felt safe. We found people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

At our last inspection in October 2012 we found the provider was not protecting people against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises. At this inspection we found improvements to the premises had been made and adequate maintenance was undertaken to ensure people's safety and maintain the suitability of the premises to meet people's needs.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. There was documentary evidence the provider conducted criminal record checks, obtained documents to verify proof of identity and the right to work in the United Kingdom.

There were arrangements in place to regularly monitor and assess the quality of the service. We found documentary evidence in the service's 'quality monitoring' folder that audits had been undertaken.

We found the home had an infection control policy in place and staff were aware of this and following the procedures for good infection control.

People's records were kept securely by the provider and we found they were updated with the relevant information needed to ensure people were given the appropriate care and treatment. People who used the service told us they thought staff were "ok" and "alright."

However we found there were still ongoing maintenance issues with the premises which we raised with the registered manager. There was evidence the provider was taking steps to address the issues we raised.