You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 July 2014
Date of Publication: 19 August 2014
Inspection Report published 19 August 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 10 July 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection was carried out by a social care inspector whose focus was to answer five key questions; Is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

On the day of the inspection five people were living in 36, Martin Close. One of the people who use the service was away on a family holiday, whilst another was at work. We spoke with two people and were also able to find out about people�s experience of the service by observing care and talking with their families and staff. During our inspection we also spoke with the registered manager, four care workers and the relatives of three people who use the service.

This is a summary of what we found;

Is the service safe?

People's relatives told us that they trusted the manager and staff because they �really cared and put the needs of people first at all times.� One relative told us, �The manager and staff are exceptional. All of the people love being there and care about one another."

People were protected from the risk of inappropriate or unsafe care because the provider had an effective system to identify, assess and manage risks to their health, safety and welfare. We found that the provider had reviewed people's risk assessments to reflect changes in their needs.

The home was clean and tidy throughout. Staff had been provided with appropriate training and guidance to ensure that they were aware how to manage the risk of infection. One relative told us, �The home is very clean and people enjoy helping with the housework.�

We found that the provider had an effective recruitment and selection process. This meant that people were safe because their health and welfare needs had been met by staff who were fit, appropriately qualified and physically and mentally able to support them.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We found the service had been meeting the requirements of the DoLS and that relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. Whilst no applications had been submitted, the manager was reviewing whether any applications needed to be made in response to the recent Supreme Court judgement in relation to DoLS.

Is the service effective?

We found that the service had effectively managed people�s nutritional and hydration requirements. We saw people were supported to eat a healthy balanced diet by staff who had been trained regarding nutrition and food safety. Where concerns had been identified regarding people�s nutrition we found that advice and guidance had been immediately sought from relevant health professionals.

Care practices we observed demonstrated that staff knew the needs of people and how to communicate with them. We found that people�s independence had been promoted and they had been supported to pursue their interests and activities.

Where people had the capacity to make decisions about their care they had been supported to do so. Where people lacked the capacity to make specific decisions the provider had assessed this and was following the correct legal processes to make decisions in people's best interests.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and compassionate staff, who spoke with people in a caring manner. We saw that care workers gave encouragement to support people who were able to do things at their own pace.

One person told us the staff, �Are my friends and help me to do what I want.� One person�s relative told us, �The staff are excellent and really care. Most of them have been there a long time and have built up such close bonds.� Another relative told us, �The manager and staff care about the people who live in the home but also care about their families. They are always letting us know how they are.�

Is the service responsive?

People�s views about their care had been sought. Where people had made requests in relation to their care these had been met. We saw evidence that when people�s care needs had changed the service had been responsive to this. They had recognised changes in people's needs and engaged other services to ensure appropriate actions were taken to meet these.

The service had a complaints system which was readily accessible to people. This ensured staff listened to their concerns and responded to them effectively.

We saw the service had arranged appointments for people with different health professionals in swift response to health issues identified, for example when one person experienced significant weight loss.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a registered manager in place and staff told us that the service was well led. One relative told us, �I don�t think you could find a better manager. You can see they care about the people living there and have created a real team spirit and family atmosphere.�

We saw evidence that the registered manager had completed various audits in relation to the service.These included infection control, control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH), medication and health and safety. We saw evidence from the health and safety audit for example, that where issues had been identified action had been taken to address them. This meant that there were processes in place to audit the quality of the service and to take action where required.