Archived: 6 Rushall Road

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 safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found '

Is the service safe?

People living at 6 Rushall Road were unable to tell us what they thought about the care and support they received. We observed people looking relaxed and comfortable in the presence of staff.

We spoke with one person's relative who told us they had 'complete peace of mind' about the care and support their family member received.

Recruitment practices were safe and thorough. Appropriate checks had been undertaken during the recruitment process to ensure that staff of good character were employed.

Care staff told us they received supervision and had undertaken training in the safeguarding of vulnerable people. This ensured that staff were able to identify unsafe practices and take appropriate action to resolve them.

The registered manager organised the rotas, taking in to account people's care needs to ensure correct decisions were made about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience of staff required. This helped to ensure that people's needs were being met.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care settings. While no applications had been submitted, appropriate policies and procedures were in place. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act and the application of DoLS. Care staff were able to explain what actions they would take if they felt that people were unable to express their choices and wishes.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.

There was a member of senior staff available on-call in case emergencies arose.

Is the service effective?

People's care and welfare needs were assessed. Specialist dietary and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with care staff that they had a good understanding of the people's care and support needs. We observed staff providing care and support in accordance with people's care plans.

People who used the service were encouraged and enabled to be an active part of their community, accessing local facilities.

The provider had effective systems in place for the obtaining, storage, administration, recording and disposal of medicines.

Is the service caring?

We observed that people were supported by attentive and caring staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people.

Care staff we spoke with confirmed that they were responsible for reading people's care plans and for ensuring that they were up to date with any changes. Care plans we reviewed reflected people's needs, preferences and diversity.

Staff put people who used the service at the centre of their care and support by enabling them to make decisions. Staff we spoke with explained how people were encouraged to make daily choices. We saw people being supported throughout the day to make choices about activities they would like to do.

Is the service responsive?

Prior to the service starting people had their needs assessed. This information was then transferred in to a person centred care plan. This meant that the service was able to respond to the needs of each individual living at the home.

People regularly attended a range of activities both in and outside the service. This helped to keep people involved with their local community.

People living in 6 Rushall Road had information on how to make a complaint available in an accessible format. We looked at how the home dealt with complaints. The home had not received any complaints since our last inspection.

The service worked well with other agencies, health professionals and family members to make sure people received consistency of care. Records contained details of appointments with health professionals and any outcomes.

Is the service well-led?

People who used the service received care and support from staff who were competent to carry out their roles. All staff received a comprehensive induction when they started their job. Further learning and development of staff was identified based on the needs of the people they were supporting.

Care staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and the needs of the people they were supporting. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

The service had quality assurance systems in place which took into account feedback from people using the service or others acting on their behalf, observations of staff, complaints and incidents. Records we reviewed showed that where issues had been identified actions had been taken to resolve them.

Policies and procedures were regularly reviewed throughout the year and were available for staff at all times.

We weren't able to speak with all of the people living at the home, because some people were unable to vocalise. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. For example we observed interactions between staff and people who used the service.

We met and spoke with staff on duty about the care they provided, their training and the support they received. We saw people were relaxed in the company of staff. We noted staff interacted positively with people during our visit.

We met with the staff member on duty and a manager from Valued Lives. They told us the people living at the home had been there for many years. Staff said this had enabled them to have a good knowledge of people's needs.

We looked at three care plans, risk assessments, daily records and health records. We saw they had all recently been reviewed and updated.

Where input from other health professionals had been required we saw referrals had been made.

Staff did not receive regular formal supervision. Training was not monitored to ensure staff received refresher training as necessary.

We saw the provider had improved systems to monitor the service monthly and this was used to inform the local authorities.