Archived: Kirlena House

People told us that care workers wore gloves when helping them with their personal care. One person said 'they [care workers] always wear gloves'. We spoke with care workers about the location and availability of disposable gloves. Care workers told us that there was always a plentiful supply of gloves.

We found that there was enough moving and handling equipment to promote the independence and comfort of people who used the service. We looked at the hoist and saw that it was in full working order. We saw evidence that the hoist was serviced in September 2013.

We spoke with four people who lived at Kirlena house. One person told us "I like living here'. We observed care workers supporting people in a sensitive and friendly way. One person told us 'I have never heard anyone [care workers] raise their voice. I've seen other residents be aggressive, the way the staff deal with them is lovely'.

We looked at the care records for five people. Records showed that each person had undergone an assessment of their needs and that care plans and assessments were person centred. We were, however, concerned about one person because recommendations from the speech and language therapist (SALT) were not being followed to manage the risk of choking. We shared our concerns about this person with the registered manager and with the local authority safeguarding team.

We spoke with people who used the service who told us that they felt safe. We spoke with care workers who understood how to identify abuse and knew how to appropriately report any concerns they had.

We found that appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe storage and administration of medicines. We saw that staff administering medicines had received training in medicines management.

We found there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. However, we found that appropriate checks were not always undertaken before staff began work.

We looked at the training and professional development provided to care workers working at Kirlena House. We found that staff did not always receive appropriate training and were not always appropriately supervised and supported in line with the service's own policy. For example, we found that only one member of staff had received an annual appraisal and only two staff had received supervision in the last year.

We found that the provider did not effectively operate systems to identify, assess and manage risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of people.

The home employed seven care workers. We spoke with two staff members and looked at the home's training and supervision records. Records showed that improvements had been made.

We found that staff completed a structured induction programme during which they worked closely with experienced care workers. Records showed that staff had been assessed and signed of as competent to undertake care tasks.

The home ensured all care workers had received the home's core training. We found that care workers' were supported to develop their English language skills to enable them to understand the training material.

We found staff received supervision and regular opportunities to discuss their concerns and develop their understanding of their role and responsibilities. Staff told us that senior staff were 'very supportive' and 'always available to offer advice'.

People using the service told us that they had a very positive experience. They received care from compassionate care workers who were described as ''very nice'' and ''they treat us very well''. All four staff members we spoke with told us that the welfare of people living in the home were care worker's main priority.

We found that risks to people's health, welfare and safety were being adequately managed. Care plans were detailed. For example they provided information about how nutrition and risks from falls should be managed.

Whilst staff were familiar with people's care needs, care workers had not received the training they needed to support them to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Some had not had training in moving and handling, safeguarding, mental capacity and deprivation of liberty. Not all staff had received supervision. This meant that care workers had not had regular opportunity to discuss their work with their supervisor to ensure they received appropriate support to develop their care skills.

We found the recruitment procedures in relation to recently recruited staff were complete. For example staff records of two care workers showed that they had started to work at the home after all relevant checks had been undertaken.