You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 8 September 2014
Date of Publication: 11 October 2014
Inspection Report published 11 October 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 8 September 2014

During a routine inspection

An adult social care inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

At the time of this inspection there were two people living at the home. We used observations of the interactions between them and the staff to assess their views on how they were cared for as they were not able to communicate verbally with us. As part of this inspection we spoke with the registered manager, three care staff, the relative of one of the people living at the home and one care manager from the local authority. We also reviewed records which included, two care plans, daily care records, and other records relating to the management of the home.

Is the service safe?

People experienced care and support that was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people�s safety and welfare. The provider had effective systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. The manager was aware of a recent Supreme Court judgement changing the way a 'deprivation of liberty' is determined. The manager had reviewed all people at the home that the ruling may apply to and had applied for and obtained authorisation as required under DoLS legislation.

Is the service effective?

The care plans showed people's needs and any risks to their welfare and safety were assessed. The daily notes and health professional notes showed care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with people's care plans. The relative we spoke with told us they felt their family member's needs were being met and their care was delivered in the way they preferred.

CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which applies to all services providing care and support for people. Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the staff acted in accordance with their wishes. Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of people's rights to make their own decisions and their individual responsibilities under the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Is the service caring?

Our observations of interactions between staff and the people living at the home demonstrated staff had a sound knowledge and understanding of the people's individual ways of communicating.

All interactions observed were calm, caring and professional. Staff showed that they knew the needs of the people they were supporting and we saw they were doing things the way people liked them done.

Is the service responsive?

Care plans and risk assessments were routinely reviewed and any identified changes were documented. Changes or newly identified needs had been added to care plans and any actions taken in response were clearly recorded. Where changes were identified, appropriate actions were taken, for example, consultation with, or referral to, an external health professional.

There was evidence that learning from incidents or investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented. For example, following an incident, the home had obtained a specialised piece of equipment that would enable staff to assist someone up from the floor if needed.

Is the service well-led

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and support and they were acted on.

The home had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received against the requirements of the essential standards. The relative we spoke with was aware of how to complain although they commented they felt there was nothing to complain about.

Staff we spoke with felt they were provided with training that enabled them to do their job safely and efficiently. We found there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people�s needs. We looked at the staff training records and saw that all staff were up to date with the training the provider considered mandatory.