Archived: Cascade 2 - Gladesmore Road

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

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

.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People are treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe.

Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Training records showed that most staff had completed safeguarding adults training within the last six months.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. This ensured that the staff were of good character and were competent enough to meet the care and welfare needs of people.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. People said that they had been involved in the care planning process and that they were happy with the care that was provided.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. One person told us, "staff are very helpful''

People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. Records confirmed that people's preferences, interests and aspirations had been recorded and that care and support had been provided in accordance with their wishes

Is the service well-led?

The new manager had only been in post for 2 months on the day of our inspection. Staff told us that the manager was "much better'' and 'he is very supportive.' A relative told us 'he is amazing and keeps me up to date with what is happening with my husband.'

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities, and had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

We looked at the care plans and records for four people and saw that they were regularly updated and signed. People were asked to contribute to and provide feedback about their care plans through regular meetings with their key workers and reviews. We saw that people had access to medical appointments such as GPs, dentists, podiatrists and opticians as necessary.

People were protected from the risk of abuse as care workers had received training and the home had responded appropriately to safeguarding concerns when they arose.

Staff told us they felt supported by the management in the home. We saw they received regular supervision. Staff training was not up to date in all areas relating to providing care for people who lived at Cascade 2.

People had the opportunity to feed information back about the care they received through meetings and they were able to raise concerns which led to service improvements. The home had a complaints policy and incident recording system.

As required at the previous inspection we found improvements in the monitoring and recording of medicines administered to people living at the home. This ensured that people were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.

People told us 'its fine,' 'I like it here,' 'they listen to me' and 'it's a godsend.' They appeared to be supported appropriately within the home, and told us that they were provided with the care that they needed. Our observations indicated that they were given choices, and had formed good and supportive relationships with staff members. People also told us that they were supported to engage in activities of their choosing.

People lived in an environment that was well maintained. They told us that the home was furnished and decorated in accordance with their preferences.

Staff told us that they received appropriate supervision and training. Appropriate records were maintained within the home to monitor the quality of service that people we received.

Insufficiently rigorous monitoring and recording of medicines administered may mean that a small number of people are not fully protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.