Archived: Stephendale Road

At the last inspection in May 2015 the service had an overall rating of Good.

We rated Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-Led were as Good and Safe was rated as Requires Improvement.

At this inspection we found the service continued to be Good.

There were safe systems in place to assist people with their prescribed medicines and make sure medicines were correctly stored and administered, and returned to the pharmacist if there were surplus supplies. At the previous inspection we found that a person was being supported to administer their own medicines; however the provider had not ensured that the medicines were securely kept in the person’s own room. At this inspection we found the person was being supported to keep their medicines in a secure manner.

People using the service felt safe. Staff understood about how to identify different types of abuse and report their concerns, in line with the provider’s safeguarding policy and procedure. Risk assessments were conducted to enable people to live as independently as possible, while ensuring that any risks associated with their social interests and health needs were minimised.

Sufficient staff were deployed in order to meet people’s needs within the home and support people to access community facilities. Robust recruitment practices were in place and checks were carried out to make sure prospective employees were suitable to work at the service. Staff were supported to carry out their roles and responsibilities through the provision of induction training, supervision and other training to meet the needs of people who used the service.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and always asked people for their consent before providing care.

The staff team encouraged people to contribute to the planning and preparation of meals and people were supported to maintain a healthy and balanced diet.

People received appropriate support to meet their health care needs as staff attended appointments with them and assisted them to follow professional guidance related to their health and wellbeing.

People and relatives told us that staff were kind and caring. They were supported by staff to maintain important friendships and relationships, pursue favourite and new interests, and celebrate special occasions in accordance with their own wishes.

Personal care and all other aspects of people’s care and support was provided in a respectful and dignified way.

People were consulted about how they wished to be supported and were provided with information about how to access independent advocacy, if they wanted external support to express their views or make a complaint.

People were encouraged to participate in the planning and reviewing of their care and support, and were advised of their entitlement to invite friends as well as relatives to their annual review meetings.

The registered manager and staff team assisted people to find out about local amenities and resources so that people could engage in meaningful activities and try out new ventures.

People had been provided with an accessible complaints leaflet and knew how to make a complaint. They were asked for their views during the residents’ meetings and during their one to one time with their key worker.

A range of quality monitoring practices took place to check that people received a good standard of care and support. Information gathered from audits and quality assurance questionnaires was evaluated to identify ways to continue making improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.

Is the service safe?

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The relevant staff were aware of the policies and procedures relating to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and understood when an application should be made.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and wellbeing. Risk assessments were put in place if the service identified that someone was at risk, for example risk assessments were carried out before people went on holiday.

Appropriate procedures and staff training was in place to safeguard people from abuse.

Is the service effective?

People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care and support they received to meet their needs and wishes. We observed that staff interacted well with people and understood their needs. One person told us, " I like living here. My [relative] comes to see me, I like making cakes and I go to literacy and music classes." Staff had received training, supervision and support to meet the needs of people living at the home.

Is the service caring?

People received care from supportive and caring staff. One person using the service told us, "people are very, very nice. They take us out and we go to some nice places like Oxford Circus and ride in a taxi." During our observations we saw that staff encouraged people to take part in activities and assist with household tasks, and they gave people positive feedback. One relative told us, "we have looked at other services and I would recommend this one."

Is the service responsive?

People were provided with information about the service in an east to read format. We found that people's interests had been identified and they were supported to go out to activities that were important to them, for example people attended weekly religious services. People were also supported to visit friends and family members as well as receive visitors. People were asked for their views informally, and through review meetings and surveys.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a registered manager in post, who was experienced and qualified for their role. The manager had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, including spot checks, audits, surveys and regular visits from senior managers. Staff were supported to develop through staff training, supervision and appraisals. The manager and staff appeared motivated and interested in improving the support and opportunities offered to people using the service.

We saw the timetable of residents' individual activities outside the home which were tailored to their needs and interests. Some residents liked to take part in musical activities and some attended day centres. Most people had family or friends whom they saw regularly.