You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 31 July 2014
Date of Publication: 30 August 2014
Inspection Report published 30 August 2014 PDF | 94.7 KB


Inspection carried out on 31 July 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care CQC inspector. On the day of our inspection 36 people used the service. We spoke with six people, two people�s relatives, three care workers, and the deputy manager. We reviewed records relating to the management of the home which included seven people�s care plans.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected, which related to people�s care and welfare, cleanliness and infection control, supporting staff, assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision and records. We used the information to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People and relatives of people who use the service were complimentary of how the provider maintained people�s safety. One person told us �I feel absolutely safe here.� A survey to gather feedback from people was conducted in May 2014 by the provider. This recorded up to 19 responses from 36 people. We saw respondents agreed that they felt safe.

Evacuation plans were in place to ensure people�s safety in the event of a fire at the service. A member of the management team was available on call in case of emergencies outside usual working hours.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to this type of service. The service was safe because requirements in relation to the DoLs had been met.

People were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. People were protected from the risk of infection because protocols based on current Department of Health guidelines were followed.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others in relation to incidents.

However, people were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care because staff used unsafe moving and handling practices when providing care and support to people. We found people�s medication profile forms in their care plans were not always accurate. They had not been updated when the prescribed medicines had been changed. This meant that there was an increased risk that medicines would not be administered in accordance with the most current prescription. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to ensuring steps are taken to ensure people are protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care.

The provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage people's medicines safely. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to ensuring effective processes are in place for the safe management of medicines.

Is the service effective?

The service demonstrated effective practices because people's views and their relatives about the type of care they wanted had been sought and acted upon. On person confirmed their involvement and told us �Staff asked me what I would like.� We found staff had a good understanding of people�s care and specific support needs, for example, in relation to pressure sore prevention.

All six people and relatives we spoke with were complimentary about the care received. One person said �The staff look after us very well.�

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and supportive staff. One relative told us �Staff have been very supportive. The overall care and atmosphere here is excellent. It feels like a happy family environment.� All interactions we observed between the staff and people were respectful and courteous. We saw that care workers gave encouragement when supporting people. People were able to do things at their own pace and were not rushed.

The compliments folder we looked at recorded responses from people�s relatives. We saw feedback was positive. Relatives rated staff support and care highly.

Is the service responsive?

People�s needs were assessed before they were admitted to the service. Records confirmed people�s preferences and diverse needs had been recorded. Staff provided examples of care and support being provided in accordance with people�s wishes, for example, in relation to meal preferences and personal hygiene.

Overall, we found care was planned and delivered to meet the identified needs for people to ensure theirs and others� safety and welfare.

We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to ensuring care is planned and delivered to meet the needs of all people who use the service.

We saw evidence that the provider responded to feedback from people , their relatives, staff and outcome of service audits in order to improve the service.

Is the service well-led?

We saw people�s and relative�s feedback was sought through meetings and surveys. The provider was responsive to comments from people, such as improvements to the supper menu and the implementation of a planned refurbishment of the service to meet people�s wishes and suggestions.

Audits and checks ensured people�s safety and wellbeing was promoted. Where issues were identified, an action plan was formulated. Progress and completion of this was monitored. We saw issues were identified and actions completed appropriately.