This inspection was to confirm the necessary improvements had been made. We looked at new and updated records, and spoke with the joint registered managers. On this occasion we did not speak with people who used the service. We found the service was now meeting minimum standards in the area of complaints.
This is a summary of what people told us and what we found.
Is the service safe?
People told us they felt safe and comfortable in the home. They said care and treatment were given with their consent, and staff took appropriate care to support them in a safe manner. We found risk assessments and support plans were in place to maintain people's safety and welfare.
People were protected against risks associated with medicines because the service had appropriate procedures in place to handle and store medicines safely.
There were enough qualified and skilled staff to support people safely.
CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which apply to care homes. The managers at Bedhampton Nursing Home understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005, DoLS and their responsibilities. Where people lacked capacity they were protected because the provider followed the appropriate guidance and code of practice. There were no DoLS in effect at the time of our inspection.
Is the service effective?
People told us that they were satisfied with the care and treatment they received. One person said, 'They look after you very well. I am very lucky.'
We found people's care and treatment were based on thorough assessments and detailed and personalised support plans. Systems were in place to ensure care and treatment were delivered according to people's plans. The provider cooperated with other services and providers to deliver effective care and treatment.
Is the service caring?
People using the service told us they got on well with staff and had a good relationship with them.
Staff we spoke with were motivated to provide good care. They knew about people's needs and how they preferred to have their care delivered.
We observed positive, friendly interactions between staff and people who used the service.
Is the service responsive?
People's care plans were individualised and person-centred. People received care and support that met their needs.
We found the service had systems in place to ensure the care provided was appropriate to peoples' changing needs. If routine checks and assessments identified a possible concern, the service responded appropriately. People were supported by other healthcare providers as appropriate.
The provider did not have an effective system for identifying and handling complaints and comments. We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements and meet the requirements of the law in relation to complaints.
Is the service well-led?
Staff told us the managers were open to suggestions and ideas about people's care. They said they were confident if they raised concerns with the manager or senior staff, they would be dealt with properly.
Systems were in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service provided. Risks were assessed and appropriate action plans were in place. There were processes in place to review and learn from incidents and accidents.
A relative told us that their parent's were involved in planning their care and their likes and dislikes were listened to and acted upon. People told us they liked living there. One said; 'The minute I came through the front door it felt good here and I have not regretted it.' A second said; "The staff never assume what I want. They always discuss things with me first." Another person said; 'They never stop me doing anything I want to. I would recommend the home without a doubt.' A relative said; 'It is a lovely place and the atmosphere is warm and welcoming.' Another relative said; 'It feels like a family here.
People told us they felt safe and well cared for. However the provider had not taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Safeguarding training had not been carried out for all staff working at the home which could put the people using the service at risk of abuse.
There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place and appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. There was an effective complaints system available. A person who used the service said; 'If I had a problem I would just ring the bell and call a nurse.' Another said they knew who to talk to if they had concerns.