Archived: Siegen Manor Resource Centre

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

Is the service safe?

People who used the service told us they felt safe and were well cared for and supported by care workers. They told us they would speak to a member of care staff or one of the managers if they had any worries or concerns. Siegen Manor had a comprehensive safeguarding and whistleblowing policy. The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although we were told no applications had needed to be submitted.

People were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment because the equipment used in the service was serviced and maintained. We looked at a number of service records and certificates which showed maintenance tests and services were carried out.

We looked at the employment records of three members of staff. We saw either Criminal Record Bureau checks or Disclosure and Barring Service checks had been completed for all staff.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed where possible with them or their relative. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.

Is the service caring?

People and relatives were very complimentary about the staff at Siegen Manor. One relative said, "Care is brilliant, they do a wonderful job." We saw a thank you card from a relative of a person who used the service which said, 'It has always been so reassuring knowing she was being treated with kindness and true dignity'.

During our inspection we observed the interaction between staff and people who used the service. It was clear people were comfortable with staff and staff knew people well. During the lunch time meal we observed staff sitting and eating their lunch with people who used the service.

We saw the results of the 2014 quality assurance questionnaire and found the results to be generally positive. One person had commented, 'I'm quite happy living here' and another person had said, 'I go to the day centre and local tea rooms every week'.

Is the service responsive?

We saw a range of activities for people who used the service. People had taken part in a St. Georges Day party, reminiscence and knit and natter. We saw the minutes from a residents meeting in January 2014 where one person had said they would like an 'old fashioned sweetie tasting', we saw this had recently taken place.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. Three people who used the service had made a complaint about having soup at lunchtime; as a result the menus were to be reviewed.

Is the service well led?

Meetings were held on a regular basis with people who used the service and staff. We saw evidence of meeting minutes which documented what had been discussed and any follow up action needed from feedback received.

The provider had a robust system in place to ensure people lived in a safe environment. For example we saw there was a comprehensive assessment of the homes fire safety, infection control audits and mattress audits.

We observed how people were given their medication. We saw they were given their medicines in a dignified and unhurried way. Staff took time to speak to people and explain their medicines to them. We also looked at records about their medication and the medicines in the home for them.

We spoke to people who told us they were quite happy with the way they were looked after but they did not tell us anything specific about their medicines.

One relative asked a member of staff about medicines and they answered in a knowledgeable way.

We spoke with the manager and staff responsible for medicines handling.

People were comfortable and relaxed in the communal areas of the home. We observed staff interacting positively with people and they supported them in a professional, sensitive and respectful manner.

We found there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff in place to meet people's needs. Care workers had developed awareness and a sound understanding of each individual's care and support needs.

Appropriate arrangements were not in place for administering medicines. Some medicines needed to be taken at specific times, e.g. 30-60 minutes before food. Whilst these instructions were clearly marked on the Medication Administration Records, we found evidence that the tablets were often given with or after meals

Communication and consultation with people's family members was effective. Relatives felt well informed and had the opportunity to partake in individual assessment, care planning and reviewing processes.

Positive comments received from people living in the home and their relatives indicated satisfaction with the home and the services provided. One person had written in the comments section of a survey "We can sleep easy on a night knowing our loved ones are well looked after." and another said "Seigen Manor is a credit to all the staff."

'We could not wish for better'

'The food is marvellous'

'We have fun'

One person said 'One or two staff can make me feel like I shouldn't' have bothered them' However none of the other people we spoke with shared this view.

'They are all brilliant'

Some visiting relatives told us that they are very happy with the care provided. They told us that when their grandchildren visit they always ask to go to see their great grand parent at the home because they love it there.

We found that everybody involved in the home including all levels of staff, people who live at the home, relatives, friends and management are all involved in providing a service which engages people living with dementia in leading as full and as independent a life as possible.