You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 27 August 2014
Date of Publication: 18 September 2014
Inspection Report published 18 September 2014 PDF

Overview

Inspection carried out on 27 August 2014

During a routine inspection

Prior to our inspection we reviewed all the information we had received from the provider. On the day of our visit we spoke with nine people that used the service, and three visiting relatives for their views and experiences. Some people who used the service were not able to tell us their experience of the care they received due to illness or disability. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We also spoke with the registered manager, senior manager and eight staff this included a variety of both care staff and non care staff such as domestic and maintenance staff. We looked at some of the records held in the service, including the care files for three people who used the service.

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. This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

The provider assessed and reviewed people's needs to ensure plans of care, and associated risk assessments were up to date and reflected people's needs.

People were supported in an environment that was maintained to a safe, clean and hygienic standard. We also found equipment at the home had been maintained and serviced on a regular basis.

People�s dependency needs had been assessed. However, we had concerns that there were not sufficient staff available at all times to meet people�s assessed needs and keep people safe.

Is the service effective?

We saw the provider completed a pre-assessment of people�s need prior to moving to the service. Care staff had information available to them that instructed them of how to meet people�s needs.

People�s care and welfare needs were monitored and we saw appropriate action had been taken when changes to people�s health had occurred.

The provider had a detailed and structured induction programme for new staff. Staff received formal opportunities to discuss their training and development needs.

Is the service responsive?

People we spoke with told us they felt they had their needs met and that they were confident the provider acted appropriately to any changes in need.

People received support to practice their faith where they had requested it. Whilst we were told that an activity coordinator was employed at the service, people raised concerns about the lack of activities and stimulation. The lack of meaningful activities and stimulation impacted on people�s welfare needs.

Is the service caring?

We found the service to have a warm, welcoming and relaxed atmosphere. Staff were observed to interact with people in a caring manner, showing dignity and respect at all times.

People using the service and relatives spoken with, talked positively about the staff. Comments included, �Staff are very good, helpful and friendly.�

Is the service well-led?

We found the provider had systems in place that enabled them to monitor the quality and safety of the service.

Information from the analysis of accidents and incidents had been used to identify changes and improvements to minimise the risk of them happening again.

The provider had a complaints policy that promoted people's rights and choices. This was easily accessible to people who used the service.