You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 September 2018

Saivi House is a care home that provides accommodation and care to a maximum of five people who have a learning disability, a mental health issue or a dual diagnosis. On the day of the inspection there were four people residing at the home.

At the last inspection on 4 November 2015 the home was overall rated Good.

At this inspection we found the home remained Good.

People in the home had complex needs and some people were unable to provide us with verbal feedback. On the day of our inspection, we spoke with two people. Following the inspection we spoke with one relative and one social care professional to obtain their feedback about the service. They told us they were confident people were safe in the presence of care workers and in the home.

During the inspection we observed people were treated with kindness and compassion. It was evident that positive caring relationships had developed between people who lived in the home and staff.

People who used the service spoke positively about staff and the care provided at the home.

Systems and processes were in place to help protect people from the risk of harm and staff demonstrated that they were aware of these. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to recognise and report any concerns or allegations of abuse.

Risk assessments had been carried out and staff were aware of potential risks to people and how to protect people from harm. Staff were knowledgeable about people's individual care needs and were aware of the triggers and warning signs which indicated when people were upset and how to support people appropriately.

There were enough staff to meet people's individual care needs and this was confirmed by staff we spoke with. On the day of the inspection we observed that staff did not appear to be rushed and were able to complete their tasks. People who used the service told us that staff always had time to speak with them. The registered manager explained that there was flexibility in respect of staffing and staffing levels were regularly reviewed depending on people's needs and occupancy levels.

There were arrangements for the recording of medicines received into the home and for their storage, administration and disposal. However, we found that medicines were not always stored at the appropriate temperature and we made a recommendation in respect of this.

We found the premises were clean and tidy. There was a record of essential inspections and maintenance carried out. The service had an Infection control policy and measures were in place for infection control.

Staff demonstrated that they had the knowledge and skills they needed to perform their roles. Staff spoke positively about the training they had received and we saw evidence that staff had completed training which included safeguarding, medicine administration, health and safety, basic life support aid and moving and handling. We noted that staff had received some supervision sessions. However, we noted that these had not taken place consistently since our previous inspection and raised this with management. The registered manager explained that they had recently employed a care supervisor who would be responsible for ensuring these were carried out consistently.

People's health and social care needs had been appropriately assessed. Care plans were person-centred, detailed and specific to each person and their needs. Care preferences were documented and staff we spoke with were aware of people's likes and dislikes. People told us that they received care, support and treatment when they required it. Care plans were reviewed monthly and were updated when people's needs changed.

The registered manager explained to us that they encouraged people to be independent as much as possible but provided support where necessary.

Staff we spoke with had an understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA 2005).

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the De

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 September 2018

The home was safe. Staff were aware of different types of abuse and what steps they would take to protect people.

Risks to people were identified and managed so that people were safe and their freedom supported and protected.

There were arrangements place in relation to the management and administration of medicines. However, we noted that medicines were not always stored at the appropriate temperature.

The home was clean and infection control measures were in place. There was a record of essential inspections and maintenance carried out.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 September 2018

The home was effective. Staff had completed training to enable them to care for people effectively. Staff were supervised and felt well supported by the registered manager.

People's nutritional needs were met.

People were supported to make their own choices and decisions.

Staff and the registered manager were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the implications for people living in the home.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 September 2018

The home was caring. Staff were aware of the importance of being respectful of people's privacy and dignity.

Care plans included information about people's individual needs including their spiritual and cultural needs and the service supported people to meet these needs.

The atmosphere in the home was calm and relaxed.

Staff had a good understanding of people's care and support needs.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 September 2018

The home was responsive. There were various activities available for people to participate in at the home.

Care plans were person-centred, detailed and specific to each person's individual needs.

The home had a complaints policy in place and there were procedures for receiving, handling and responding to comments and complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 September 2018

The home was well-led. Checks and audits had been undertaken.

People told us that the registered manager was approachable and they were able to raise concerns with him if they needed to.

Staff were supported by the registered manager and told us they felt able to have open and transparent discussions.