You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 30 July 2014
Date of Publication: 23 August 2014
Inspection Report published 23 August 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 30 July 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection was completed by a single adult social care inspector. On the day of the inspection the service was provided to 40 people. As part of this inspection we spoke with two people who used the service and five relatives. We spoke with the registered manager and their partner who were the owners. We spoke with three members of staff. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the home, and training records. We looked at two care plans.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, and the records we looked at. We used the evidence we collected during our inspection to answer five questions.

Is the service safe?

Risk assessments were in place for things such as moving and handling and medication. Control measures had been put in place. This meant that people�s needs were met and people were kept safe. People and their relatives confirmed they felt the service was safe. A relative we spoke with said, �They [The staff] are very respectful of X�s dignity.� Another relative said, �I can�t fault them they are excellent.�

Staff had received training in dementia and mental health which incorporated aspects of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The manager told us they would be arranging specific training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We saw mental capacity assessments and any subsequent best interest decisions that had been made. Records identified when people lacked capacity to make their own decisions. This meant that systems were in place to safeguard people as required.

People received care and support from staff who had the skills, experience and knowledge to meet people�s needs. Staff were supported to achieve qualifications in health and social care. We saw a training matrix which showed staff had recently undertaken some refresher training in things such as safeguarding and medication. Staff received supervision and appraisal. Staff team meetings were due to be re-introduced. This helped to ensure that people�s needs were always met and that staff had the opportunity to raise any issues.

On a previous inspection we found that we could not be certain that people would always be protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not being maintained. During this inspection we saw evidence that improvements had been made. Care plans had been personalised to reflect the care delivered and people�s preferences had been recorded. This meant people received care that was personalised to them to which ensured their safety.

Is the service effective?

People experienced care and support that met their needs. People told us how they were supported. The registered manager told us they worked with other agencies to ensure people�s health and social care needs were met. Relatives confirmed that the people receiving care and support were involved in decisions about their care. This meant that people received care in the way they wanted.

Relatives we spoke with told us they had no concerns about the timekeeping of staff. However, some staff we spoke with felt that occasionally a little more time was required to meet people�s needs.

Regular audits and checks took place. Issues identified were acted on. This meant the service had effective systems in place to identify improvements and continually meet people�s needs.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. Staff we spoke with told us how they supported people. People and relatives confirmed staff were caring, respectful and polite. One person said, �I am satisfied with the carers I have got.� A relative said, �X is developing good relationships with staff, they are one of the best care agency�s in the area.� Another relative told us their family member usually had the same care staff but a new person would be working with their family member. They told us they were apprehensive about this and would have preferred a staff member.

People�s preferences, likes, dislikes and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people�s wishes. People were involved in their day to day care and were supported to maintain their independence. This meant people�s diversity and individuality were promoted and respected.

Is the service responsive?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Person centred care plans had been developed. They identified people�s needs and were reviewed annually or when there was a change in need. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people�s needs. People were given choices and supported to make decisions themselves.

We saw records that showed the service responded quickly to meet people�s needs and ensured people�s safety and dignity was maintained. For example, paramedics were called when a person had suffered a fall. People and their relatives confirmed that they were given choices and encouraged to express their views.

People and relatives told us they had emergency contact numbers. They said they would speak to the registered manager if they had a complaint. A relative said, �I have no complaints.�

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. Staff felt supported in their roles and felt their views were listened to. One staff member said, �If I had any concerns I would go straight to management.� Staff told us they enjoyed their jobs and working for the service. Most people and their relatives told us they had confidence in the manager / owners. One person said, �I have every confidence in the manger.�

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. People had access to a copy of the complaints procedure. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The service had a quality assurance system in place. Audits were undertaken regularly. The registered manager showed us analysis of feedback from people and their relatives. The registered manager told us that they took action as a result of findings. This meant the quality of the service was able to continually improve.