Archived: The Laurels

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

People had been cared for in an environment that was safe and provided care which they had agreed to. There were sufficient staff to support the needs of people although the registered manager was looking at staffing levels to support further activities for people. People were cared for by people who had the appropriate skills and experience to ensure their care and welfare.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff have been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

We saw that people received care which was individualised and planned in line with their needs. People who lived at this home often had difficulties in communicating with others. We saw that staff knew people well and were responsive and patient with people when they were communicating. This meant that people were able to express themselves and were supported by people who understood their needs. From our observations and from speaking with staff we saw that they had a good understanding of the care needs of people.

Staff had received appropriate training to meet the needs of people living at the home.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff ensured people were given time and the means to communicate their needs. Staff treated people as individuals and provided care which was in line with their agreed plan of care. People's needs were supported in a calm, dignified and respectful way.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs were assessed and reviewed regularly to ensure their needs were met. People and their representatives were encouraged to participate in care planning and review. The registered manager or keyworkers regularly spoke with people and their representatives to ensure their needs were being met.

People had access to activities which were important to them and had been supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.

Is the service well-led?

Staff had a good understanding of the care needs of people who lived at the home and quality assurance processes were in place. Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and told us that management were supportive of their roles.

On the day we visited there were six people living at the home, all of whom had difficulties in verbally communicating with people.

We used different methods to help us understand the experience of people using this service including observations, speaking to four staff and reviewing records.

We saw that people were happy in this home and staff knew people very well. Care was planned clearly and with the involvement of people as they were able. People who were unable to make informed decisions about their care were cared for appropriately using the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and best interest decisions. This ensured people had their wishes and views taken into account at all times.

People were treated with dignity and respect. They had their individual rooms which were personalised and well maintained.

People were encouraged to maintain their own living space and we saw that staff gave people given privacy within this environment whilst maintaining their safety.

During our observation we saw that staff interacted well with people when they were supporting them. We saw that staff were knowledgeable about people's needs and preferences. However people's care plans and risk assessments were not regularly reviewed and updated to reflect the care needs of individuals.

We spoke to staff and reviewed records which showed us that people were protected from abuse. Staff received ongoing training which provided them with the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the people they were supporting.

However, we found that the provider did not have an effective system for monitoring and assessing the quality of the service which regularly took into account the view of people and their representatives.