We spoke with six people who used the service. We also spoke with management staff and two members of care staff. They helped answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, the 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 caring?
People are treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us that the staff were kind, fun and responsive. One person told us, 'Everyone is good here. The staff are fun and I like them all. Everyone gets on well and I am always happy to come home.'
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, 'I love it here, they are so nice. Everything I want they help with.'
People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. The management team completed analysis of this information and took action if required.
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. Encouragement was given to people to live as independently as possible.
Is the service safe?
People's health and care needs were assessed fully with them and their representatives, and they were involved in planning how care should be provided. Specialist dietary, mobility and behavioural issues had been identified in care plans where required. People said that they took part in making decisions about their care, their health and any changes. We saw that care records reflected their current needs.
People's needs were taken into account which enabled people to move around freely and safely. The premises had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people with physical impairments.
Systems were in place to assist managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents and concerns. Procedures were in place which were robust and regularly updated. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to complete analysis to look at service improvement.
The building in which the service is run from was safe and appropriate for the needs of those people living there. Daily checks and regular audits were in place. Contracts were in place for maintenance and annual checks.
Is the service effective?
The registered manager set the staff levels, the manager took people's care and dependency needs into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience of staff required. This ensured that people's needs were met. Staff employed had relevant experience and qualifications to enable them to complete their role. Training was encouraged and undertaken regularly.
Analysis of the service was completed by people who used the service, staff and management to ensure that the service remained appropriate and effective.
Is the service responsive?
People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. People told us, 'I don't like doing craft so I don't go, I stay here on that day which is my decision', 'I go to Church, it's a church I've always gone to and I come back by myself when it is not cold,' 'We get to go on holiday where we want to go.'
People told us that they felt listened to and they felt able to talk to all staff if they wanted to do anything. Staff confirmed that they felt people were able to make choices, which were then responded to. One staff member told us, 'I think people have a great choice in what they want to do, we are here to support them, and check that they're safe, not to tell them what to do.' One person told us, 'I'm off to Rome next week, I've always wanted to go to Rome so for my birthday I am going there with one of the staff.'
When people's needs changed, we found that care records had been updated to reflect this. We saw that health professionals were involved in a timely manner.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. We saw evidence that the management team was proactive in managing the service and ensuring that care provided was relevant and that people who used the service were the central focus when planning.
The service had a quality assurance system; we saw very positive feedback had been received from people, representatives and professionals. Analysis of information was in place and as a result the quality of the service was continually improving.
We saw that staff were supported by management and encouraged to undertaken relevant training courses and qualifications to enhance their knowledge.