Archived: Boldmere Drive

People and relatives told us that people were safe at the home. Staff were able to identify and respond to changes in people’s behaviours to keep them safe and well. Risks to people were managed effectively and staff had taken steps to minimise these. Staff had an active role in maintaining the health and safety of the home and one person who lived at the home supported them with this.

People were supported by a consistent staff group and we saw that there were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs. People were protected by robust recruitment processes. People received their medicines safely and staff had access to thorough guidance about supporting people to take their medicines.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to support people effectively and told us they felt supported in their roles. Staff received regular supervision and had access to further training and support from the registered provider if they needed this. We saw that the registered manager and staff had a clear understanding of people’s needs and relatives confirmed this. Where people were unable to express themselves verbally, staff showed awareness of how they communicated their needs. People sometimes displayed behaviours that may have challenged and staff provided examples of how they supported people to become calm.

Staff we spoke with did not have a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and how this was applied at the home, however, people were supported to make decisions about their care and day-to-day lives. People enjoyed mealtimes and were supported to have a healthy diet. People chose and prepared meals and we saw that their dietary preferences and requirements were met. People were supported to access healthcare support as required and staff took an active role in supporting people to stay well.

People and staff enjoyed caring and positive interactions with one another. We saw that people were treated as individuals and they visibly looked at home at the service. People were supported to maintain relationships with people that were important to them. Staff cared about people’s welfare and treated them with respect and people were regularly encouraged and supported to maintain their independence.

People received care that was responsive to their needs and relatives described positive outcomes for people. People, and their relatives where appropriate, were regularly involved in care planning reviews and discussions. Action had been taken in response to people’s changing needs to ensure that they remained safe and well and regular reviews checked that people were happy with their care. People were supported to follow their interests and enjoyed regular individualised activities and social events at the home.

Systems were in place to seek people’s feedback and relatives’ feedback and staff views showed that people enjoyed a person-centred and inclusive culture at the home. The registered manager had positive relationships with people and understood their needs well, and this was reflected in staff practice at the home.

Staff described an open culture where they could offer challenge and solutions to meet people’s needs. The registered manager felt supported by the registered provider and a quality assurance process encouraged the home to continue good practice.

The detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.

Is the service safe?

Both relatives we spoke with told us that they felt reassured that their relatives were safe with the staff that supported them. One relative told us, 'X has lived there for many years. I feel that they are well looked after and safe.' Another relative told us, staff are very good always polite and helpful nothing is too much trouble.

All the staff that we spoke with confirmed that they had received training on how to protect people and understood what safeguarding people meant. They told us that the training was updated when required.

We saw that people had an assessment of their needs and associated risks. A plan of care was completed which enabled staff to offer care and support to people in a safe way. Staff told us and records sampled showed that they had received training and support to enable them to deliver care safely.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, which applies to care homes. This is a domiciliary service. No one using this service was subjected to an application to deprive them of their liberty.

Records sampled showed that the provider had systems in place to establish whether people had capacity to give consent to care and were able to make informed decisions. Staff spoken with understood about people making decisions and how to respect their rights. For example, supporting people to make choices about their care.

All of the staff spoken with were able to tell us about the needs of the people they were supporting. This meant staff were knowledgeable about how people wanted to be supported.

Is the care effective?

Records sampled showed that people who used the service and their relatives where possible had been involved in an assessment of their needs. This meant that people were able to influence the care they received.

All staff spoken with were able to tell us how they supported people and gave them choices about their care. All staff told us they asked people what they wanted at each call.

Is the service caring?

We saw from daily records sampled that where staff had concerns about people's health, additional support was provided or other health care professionals were made aware and advice sought. We saw that reviews of people's care needs were completed. This ensured that the service provided met people's changing needs. Both relatives spoken with gave positive comments about the care provided. One relatives told us, 'I think X gets very good care.'

Is the service responsive?

Records sampled showed that there were systems in place to gather the views of people so that the service was developed taking into consideration the views of staff and people who received a service.

Is the service well led?

We saw that the staffing had not changed for a number of years so people had continuity with of care. There was a manager that had been registered with us and was responsible for the day to day running of the service. We saw that the staffing had not changed for a number of years so people had continuity with of care. This meant that people could always contact a senior member of staff if they had any concerns.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and received regular newsletters and had frequent staff meetings. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and quality assurance processes were in place. This ensured that people received a good quality service at all times.

We saw that staff treated people with respect and dignity. A relative said "They're terrific very happy with the way X is looked after". One person who live there told us, " This is my home I love it here''. Another person told us, '' I am happy''. Staff spoken with had been supporting people living in the home for a very long time and knew the people living in the home extremely well.

Both relatives spoken with told us that their relatives were looked after very well. One relative told us, 'X is so happy when they come home and always wants to go back. This tells me a lot'. This meant people who used the service had continuity of care.

We saw that people were relaxed in their environment and that systems were in place to keep them safe from harm. Staff knew their responsibilities in respect of protecting people and the actions they needed to take. This meant that people were protected from harm.

Staff received a range of training so that they had up to date knowledge and skills order to support the people who lived in the home. Staff told us they felt supported to carry out their roles.

There were systems in place to monitor how the home was run this involved the people living in the home relative and external professional. This meant the provider ensure people received a quality service.

Some of the people using the service were unable to tell us about their experience of living in the home because of their complex needs. We completed a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who cannot talk with us. We spoke with three staff, three relatives and the manager.

We observed that staff spoke with people respectfully and gave them choices. This meant people were involved in their care.

Staff spoken with was able to tell us about people's needs showing that people received care in a way that they preferred. All three relatives spoken with were happy with the care that their relative living in the home. One relative told us 'I can go home knowing that my relative is being well looked after. I would know if they were not happy, the staff are so caring'. Another relative told us 'Since X has been here the changes have been brilliant.

Staff received a range of training. This meant staff had up to date knowledge and skills in order to support the people who lived in the home.

There were systems in place to monitor how the home was run, to ensure people received a quality service.