Archived: Ailsa House Residential Care Home

This inspection was conducted by a single inspector. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, relatives and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary, please read the full report.

We spoke with five people who lived at the home and a local NHS professional who was visiting. We also spoke with the manager, the provider and three members of care staff. We looked at written records, which included people's care records, staff personnel files, medication systems and quality assurance documentation.

Is the home safe?

We found the accommodation to be warm and clean. People were protected by safe recruitment practices. There were sufficient skilled and experienced care staff on duty.

The provider had systems in place that ensured the safe receipt, storage, administration and recording of medicines. There were proper processes in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Is the home effective?

People we spoke with were satisfied with the care and support they received. No one raised any concerns with us. This was consistent with positive feedback reported in the provider's own annual quality assurance survey.

People were treated with dignity and respect and were encouraged to promote their independence. People were given information and support to help them understand the care and support available to them. Care plans and risk assessments were informative, up to date and regularly reviewed. All of the staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about individual people's care needs, and this knowledge was consistent with the care plans in place.

Is the home caring?

We spoke with five people who lived at the home. We were not able to speak with some of the people due to their communication needs. One person said to us, "This is a smashing place; very pleasant all round." Another person said, "Everyone is very kind to me; I have no complaints."

We witnessed the care and attention people received from staff. All interactions we saw were respectful, kind and friendly. There was a calm atmosphere throughout the home and a good rapport between staff and the people who lived there.

Is the home responsive?

People were consulted about and involved in their own care planning and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have the capacity to give consent, we found the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

Three staff members told us that the manager was approachable and they would have no difficulty speaking to them if they had any concerns about the service. The manager responded in an open, thorough and timely manner to complaints.

Is the home well led?

Staff said that they felt well supported by the manager, there was a good team ethic and they were able do their jobs safely. The provider had a range of quality monitoring systems in place to ensure that care was being delivered appropriately by staff, that the service was continuously improving and that people were satisfied with the service they were receiving.

The atmosphere within the service was calm and relaxed and staff interactions with people who live there were noted to be positive. Staff were able to demonstrate a good understanding of people's care and support needs. We spoke with two relatives and they confirmed that the quality of care and support provided for their member of family was very good. Comments included; "The care and support provided to my relative is excellent. I have nothing negative to say about the home," and, "I cannot fault the care that is provided for my relative. Nothing is too much trouble for the staff."

The inspection showed that improvements relating to medication had been sustained. We found that significant effort had been made by the provider to address previous identified shortfalls.

Our findings showed that improvements had been made since our last inspection in September 2011 to ensure that people were supported to have adequate nutrition and hydration and records were able to evidence this. In addition steps had been taken by the provider to employ an activities co-ordinator at the service three days a week so as to support people to participate in meaningful activities.

However our findings also showed that as a result of non-compliance with the regulations or part of a regulation, people who use the service did not always experience care and treatment that met their needs. Our evidence showed that the impact of this means that people's health and wellbeing was on occasions compromised and improvements by the provider to become compliant was required.