Archived: St Andrews

We also set out 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, their relatives and the staff told us.

Is the service safe?

People's health and care needs were assessed before they moved into the home. We saw that care plans contained clear information about people's support needs. We also found the risks associated with people's care and treatment had been assessed and there was clear information on how any risks could be minimised.

The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The manager told us that currently applications for DoLS had been made for three people, however the outcome of the applications were not yet known.

We found that the skill mix of staff who worked at the home was sufficient to meet people's needs at all times.

Is the service effective?

All people had an individual care plan which set out their care needs. People and relatives we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the care and support given by staff at St Andrews. One person said, "I love it here and am very happy ". A relative told us "The staff listen to me and they support my relative very well". Another relative told us "This is the best home my relative has ever been in".

We observed staff supported people effectively.

Is the service caring?

We saw that people were supported by kind and attentive staff. Care workers showed patience and gave suitable encouragement when supporting people. They were aware of people's needs and the preferences of people they cared for in how people wanted care to be delivered.

Relatives of people who used the service told us staff were kind and caring.

Staff told us that they always respected people's decisions and wanted to provide the best possible support for people.

Is the service responsive?

People's care plans included information about their needs and preferences. People we spoke with told us they were listened to and staff respected their wishes.

We saw that care plans were reviewed regularly and staff at St Andrews responded positively to changes in people's needs or circumstances.

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 that they encouraged and supported people to participate in activities to promote and maintain their well-being.

Relatives we spoke with told us that they had regular contact with the home and they could

speak to the manager or staff at any time. They said they were kept informed about any issues which affected their relatives.

Is the service well led?

The provider organisation employed an area manager who carried out monthly checks of the service provided at St Andrews. The registered manager also carried out a range of quality checks.

Annual surveys were sent out to stakeholders including, health professionals, staff, people who used the service and families.

All staff received supervision every eight weeks. Staff performance issues were discussed and additional staff training was identified as necessary.

Staff meetings took place each month 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.

We found that people were involved in their care and were supported to make choices. A person who used the service told us that they were involved in planning their care and said; "They [staff] listen to me and think about the things I say". A relative told us; "I would recommend the home. They [staff] do a very good job." Care records showed that care was planned in accordance with people's needs and preferences. A person who used the service told us "This woman [manager] never lets me down. She is wonderful".

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. People living there told us they 'felt safe'. We found that people were safeguarded against the risks associated with medicines because the home had effective systems in place for managing these. People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others.