We visited this service and talked to people to gain a balanced overview of what they experienced, what they thought and how they were cared for and supported. We spoke with two relatives; we met the four people that lived there, three staff and the registered manager. Most people that used the service had limited verbal communication skills so we observed their interactions with staff and their body language to understand their view of the support they received. We considered all of the evidence that we had gathered under the outcomes that we inspected. We used that information to answer the five questions that 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 ?
We observed that people were treated with dignity and respect by the care staff. We saw that people were given choice in their care.
Relatives that we spoke with told us that they were very happy with the care at the home. One relative told us, 'I know my relative is absolutely safe in the home'.
We spoke with staff and the registered manager about Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This applies to all care homes. The registered manager told us that there had been no applications and showed us that they had the information to refer to if an application needed to be made. They told us that they had received DoLS training and that care staff would receive some further training so they had an understanding of their responsibilities.
The service was clean, hygienic and safe. The home had an effective infection control policy and systems. Equipment was well maintained and services regularly so preventing any unnecessary risks.
We saw that systems were in place to make sure that learning takes place from accidents, incidents, complaints and investigations. This reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.
Is the service effective ?
A relative we spoke with confirmed that they could visit throughout the day. We saw that facilities were available so people could meet in private if they wanted to.
We saw that relatives were involved with people's care. A relative told us, 'They always ensure that my relative's health care needs are well met, they involve other health professionals and inform me of what is happening'.
People's health and care needs were assessed and care plans told staff what people's care needs were so they could support people consistently. Referrals had been made to external professionals so people got the support they needed to maintain their health and wellbeing.
Staff had received most of the training they needed but some further training was needed to ensure that they continued to maintain their skills and knowledge needed to care for people effectively.
Is the service caring?
We saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect. We saw that staff were patient and caring they took their time and did not rush people. Staff were attentive and interacted well with people and we saw that people responded positively to staff.
People, their relatives and other professionals involved with the service had completed an annual satisfaction survey. We saw that relatives had made positive comments in the surveys we looked at.
People's preferences, interest and aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded in their care records.
Is the service responsive?
We saw that people were supported to take part in a range of activities at home and in the local community. We saw that staff responded to spontaneous requests from people to do activities, or to spend their time in a way that they preferred. People had also been supported to go on an annual holiday.
We saw that when needed staff had requested the involvement of other health professionals in people's care.
Is the service well lead?
The home had a manager who was registered with us, CQC. They were experienced and knowledgeable about the needs of the people that lived in the home.
We found that effective systems were in place to regularly assess the quality of the service that people received.
Staff that we spoke with were clear about their role and responsibilities. They had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and the systems in place to monitor quality assurance. This ensured that people received good quality of care.