24 September 2014
During a routine inspection
Was the service safe?
There was a complaints procedure which was located in the hallway. This was in a simplified format for people to voice their concerns. People we spoke with did not have any concerns and said they felt safe.
The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one.
The home was warm clean and free from any offensive odours. Staff had been trained in infection control topics and had up to date policies and procedures to follow. Staff had protective clothing to wear to help stop any spread of infection. People who used the service said, "The home is spotless. Absolutely clean." and "They keep my room and the home very clean and tidy". Infection control systems helped protect the health and welfare of people who used the service and staff.
Was the service effective?
Plans of care showed us that people who used the service or a family member had been involved in developing them. People's choices and wishes had been recorded for staff to give individualised care. People's health and care needs were assessed with them if possible and they were involved in writing their plans of care.
People who used the service told us, "The food is marvellous. Better than any hotel and you get a good choice" and "The food is very good and you can get something else if you don't like it". People's nutritional needs were assessed and professional help sought where needed. Specialist dietary, medication and community support needs had been identified in care plans where required.
People who used the service told us they were treated privately when any care was given. Staff we spoke with told us how they helped preserve people's dignity. One person told us, "I like to do some things for myself like make my own bed". Staff were taught the principles of privacy, dignity and confidentiality. We observed that any care was given in a private manner and did not compromise the dignity of people who used the service.
Was the service caring?
The people we spoke with told us, "I am doing very well. I am much better. The staff here are very good and you could not get better" and "There are enough staff to help you. They are very good but I would tell staff what I think if I did not like something. I like it here and they care for me very well". People were supported by kind and attentive staff.
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. People who used the service were encouraged to provide as much information about their past lives and what they liked or did not. One person told us they had improved so much they were able to walk again with an aid and showed us the garden they had been working on during the summer. The recording of personal information gave staff the knowledge to treat people as individuals.
Was the service responsive?
People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. Each person had their known hobbies and interests recorded. There was a daily activities record and a staff member employed to provide activities. People who used the service told us, "I have been to the meetings and they talked about what activities we liked but if it's a nice day I miss it because I prefer to be in the garden" and "I have been to the new market. It was lovely". Activities outside included people going out with their relatives or staff to eat, shop or visit places of interest. Entertainers were brought into the home and games, exercises, gardening, reading and watching television helped keep people active.
Managers held regular meetings with people who used the service and staff to take note of their views. People who used the service and staff confirmed the meetings were held every month. People who used the service told us, "I am content here" and "My family visit every day and they make them welcome. I am very happy here. It is a good place to be".
Was the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. There was a system for providing information to other providers in an emergency.
The service had good quality assurance systems. The registered manager undertook regular audits of the service. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly and as a result the quality of the service was continually improving.
Staff training was on-going, as was supervision and appraisal. Staff told us, "There are enough staff to meet the needs of the people we look after. Sometimes people are poorly so it seems short of staff but we check the dependency levels to make sure we meet their needs. I like working with the residents and we have some good staff. I like the caring aspect. There is a good staff team" and "We have staff meetings about every month. We can bring up topics of our own at meetings and the registered managers doors is always open. The manager is approachable and there is a good staff team. I have been here nine years today. I like coming to work. I think I get good job satisfaction".