You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 18 September 2014
Date of Publication: 10 October 2014
Inspection Report published 10 October 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 18 September 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We spoke with three people who use the service, two members of staff and the person in charge, as the manager was not on duty. We also looked at six support plans and records related to the management of the service. Our inspection team was made up of one inspector. We used the evidence to answer five questions we always ask.: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Is the service safe?

People told us that they felt safe. Safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the provider to maintain safe care. The provider had robust policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. At the time of inspection, no-one was subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them and they or their representatives were involved in the compilation of their care plans. People said that they had been involved in the process and that care plans reflected their current needs.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with people who live at the service. We asked them for their experience about the staff that supported them. Feedback from people was positive, for example one person said, "I don't have anything negative to say. I enjoy living here". Another person told us, "I love it here. I can do what I want".

People who live at the service and their families were asked to complete a satisfaction survey by the provider. These were used to help improve the service in the future.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

The home worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a coherent way.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy.

People engaged in a range of activities both in the home and in the wider community.

Is the service well-led?

The service operated a quality assurance system which identified and addressed shortcomings. As a result, a good quality of the service was maintained.

The staff we spoke with were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They had a good understanding of the needs of the people they were caring for and were properly trained and supported to carry out their duties.