At the time of our inspection there were four people living at Shalom. One inspector carried out this inspection.As part of this inspection we spoke with three relatives, a visiting healthcare professional, the registered manager, the deputy manager and two care staff.
We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask.
' Is the service safe?
' Is the service effective?
' Is the service caring?
' Is the service responsive?
' Is the service 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 the records we looked at.
Is the service safe?
People who lived at Shalom were unable to tell us what they thought about the support and care provided. We spoke with three relatives who told us that they had confidence in the staff supporting their family member. They felt that their family member was also safe whilst living at the home.
Care plans provided guidance for staff on how to meet people's needs in a way which minimised the risk for the individual. Where people were at risk, staff followed effective risk management policies and procedures to protect the person. This ensured that staff were able to support people whilst respecting their dignity and protecting their rights.
There was a member of senior staff available on-call in case emergencies arose.
Recruitment practices were safe and thorough. Staff had received supervision and undertaken training in the safeguarding of vulnerable people. This ensured that staff were able to identify unsafe practices and take appropriate action to resolve them.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care settings. While no applications have been submitted, appropriate policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had received training on understanding when an application should be made and how to submit one.
The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.
Is the service effective?
The home had access to an advocacy service if people needed it. This meant that when required people could access additional support. Relatives we spoke with told us that they were involved in planning their family member's care.
People's care and welfare needs were assessed. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.
Relatives told us that they were happy with the care that had been delivered and that their family member's needs had been met. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people they were supporting.
Is the service caring?
We observed that people were supported by attentive and caring staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people.
We saw that staff showed concern for people's well-being. Staff knew the people they were caring for and supporting, including their preferences and personal histories.
People who lived at Shalom were unable to tell us what they thought about the support and care provided. We spoke with three relatives. We asked for their opinion about the staff and how they supported their family member. They all said they were happy with the care and support received by their family member.
Is the service responsive?
People regularly attended a range of activities both in and outside the service. The home had its own adapted vehicle which helped people to remain involved in their local community.
The service worked well with other agencies, health professionals and family members to make sure people received consistent care. Records contained details of appointments with health professionals and any outcomes. We saw that referrals were made to the appropriate health services when people's needs changed.
Relatives we spoke with confirmed staff would always contact the appropriate health professional if their family member required an appointment.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies, health professionals and family members to make sure people received consistent care. We spoke with a visiting healthcare professional who spoke positively about working with the home.
Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and what was required of them.
The home had quality assurance processes in place. People and their representatives were asked for their feedback on the service they received. Relatives we spoke confirmed they knew how to make a complaint if they were not happy with services provided. One relative told us that they were quite happy to raise any concerns they had with the manager or other staff members. Any concerns raised were dealt with quickly and they were always informed of any outcomes.