22 March 2012
During a routine inspection
During this visit we (The Care Quality Commission) found that there were several areas in which the provider was non-compliant. However, people living at the home that we spoke with were happy with the care they received and we did not see any practice that gave us cause for concern. However, we observed the interaction between staff and people living at the home to determine how well people's needs were being met.
On our visit to the home we spoke with three staff and three of the people living there about the ways in which people were involved in the services they received. Some people living at the home did not have the ability to communicate verbally and so could not always express their views on whether their privacy and dignity was respected, whether their care needs were met, or if they had choice. However, we observed the interaction between staff and people living at the home to determine how well people's needs were being met.
Not everyone living at the home had their needs and wishes recorded in a personalised care plan. We saw no evidence that people had been involved in making decisions about their care. However, two people told us that they were involved in making decisions about their daily care needs, such as the time they got up and went to bed.
We looked at the care files for all 11 people living at the home. We saw four people did not have any form of care plan and that the care plans that we saw had not been updated since 2010. The provider told us that there had been a problem with the computer system and that he had not got round to ensuring that everyone had an up to date care plan.
One person told us that staff were "really good" to them and that they could talk to staff about any worries they had. They said that if they woke up at night they "just have to touch the alarm and someone is there right away". Another person told us that "Everyone is wonderful and very kind".
Two staff that we spoke with told us that they had not received any formal training in safeguarding people from abuse. However, they were able to describe different types of abuse and the action they would take if they suspected abuse was occurring. We looked at the recruitment files for three staff employed at the home. We found that for two of the staff appropriate checks had not been undertaken before they had begun work.
Prior to this visit we had received concerns about the cleanliness of the home. We saw that generally decorations and carpets were shabby. Some ceilings and walls had been re-plastered, but not re-painted. Paintwork was chipped along skirting boards and around doors. Banisters and doors were grubby and two rooms had an unpleasant odour. Some chairs in the lounge were grubby where food had been rubbed into the arms.
The provider told us that he regularly talked to people who lived at the service and their representatives, and that they all knew they could say anything they liked.