Myrtle Cottage provided support for up to six people with a learning disability. At the time of our visit there were six people living at the home.The inspection was carried out by a single inspector. We spoke with three of the people who lived at the home. Due to the nature of people's learning disability we were not always able to ask direct questions to people. We did however chat with them and were able to obtain their views as much as possible. We also spoke with a relative of one person, the registered manager and three members of staff.
We used this inspection to answer our 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 we observed, the records we looked at and what people who used the service and the staff told us.
Is the service safe?
People we spoke with told us they felt safe while being supported. They told us the care staff were good. None of the people we spoke with had any concerns about the support they received. Staff told us the care and support plans gave them the information they needed to provide the level of support people required.
We saw care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. During the inspection we looked at two plans of care. Both of the care plans had risk assessments in place to help minimise any risk that had been identified.
The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Is the service effective?
Each person had a plan of care and support. We saw that support plans explained what the person could do themselves and what support they needed from staff.
During our visit we saw staff consulted people as much as possible when they supported them. Staff spoke to people clearly and explained to people what they were doing. Staff told us the care and support plans gave them the information they needed to provide the level of support people required.
We looked at how staff recorded what support had been provided each day. We saw that recording took place throughout the day. This provided good information about the care and support given as well as providing evidence of care delivery.
Is the service caring?
We observed staff speaking to people appropriately and they used people's preferred form of address. We saw people and staff got on well together. There was a good rapport between staff and people who used the service and we observed staff and people enjoying each other's company.
We observed that people were happy with the support they received and a relative of one person we spoke with was very happy with the care and support their relative received. They told us the staff were caring and provided the help, care and support their relative needed.
Is the service responsive?
We saw people had regular reviews of the care and support they received. We saw review notes which showed alterations had been made to people's plans of care as people's needs had changed.
We saw that people were able to participate in a range of activities both in the home and in the local community. Staff told us they encouraged and supported people to participate in activities to promote and maintain their well-being.
People who used the service, their relatives and staff were asked for their views about how the home was meeting people's needs and any concerns or ways to improve the service were acted on.
Is the service well led?
Myrtle Cottage had a policy and procedure for quality assurance and the provider organisation also employed a quality manager who ensured that six monthly checks on the quality of the service provided were carried out. The provider also employed an area manager who carried out these audits.
A relative we spoke with told us that they had regular contact with the home and said that they could speak to the manager or staff at any time. They told us they were kept informed about any issues which affected their relatives.
Staff meetings took place every three months and minutes of these meetings were kept. Staff we spoke with confirmed this and said the staff meetings enabled them to discuss issues openly with the manager and the rest of the staff team.
Meetings with people who used the service also took place weekly and these were used to discuss any issues in the home and also to plan activities and menus for the following week.
The manager told us that all staff received supervision every six to eight weeks where staff performance issues were discussed and additional staff training was identified as necessary. The manager also told us that staff received annual appraisals. Staff we spoke with confirmed this.