Archived: 19 Fairview Road

The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, from speaking with all four people who were using the service and three staff who supported them. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the service and to the support needs of people who were using the service. These included, two support plans, two daily support records files and three staff files.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report. We used the evidence we collected during our inspection to answer five questions.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

The home had detailed policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This was to ensure that people who could not make decisions themselves were protected. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when a DoLS application should be made, and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

Staff we spoke with said they had been properly recruited and trained. Staff told us that they received good support in their roles.

Is the service effective?

There was an advocacy service available if people needed it. This meant that, when required, people had access to additional support to help them make decisions.

People's health and care needs were assessed and they were involved in their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by cheerful and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. A person who used the service we spoke with told us, 'The staff here are lovely, I'm happy here.' Another person told us, 'I like it here, the staff are really good to me.' 'I know about my care plan, I can look at this with staff and talk about what's in it'.

The responses and views of people who used the service were recorded at the annual quality monitoring review. Any shortfalls or concerns raised were addressed.

People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided by staff in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People had the opportunity to enjoy a range of activities and were able to get out and about in the local and wider community.

A person who used the service we spoke with told us, 'We go out with staff, we go shopping and I go to college.' 'The staff are very helpful to me, I tell them if I'm not happy about something and they try to sort it out for me.'

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to ensure all aspects of people's needs were being met.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the aims of the home and of the standards of care and support that was expected of them.

Frequent and wide ranging service monitoring processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

We saw that people's care and treatment was planned and reviewed with their and their relative's involvement, wherever possible. Risks to people's health, welfare and safety were identified and well managed. Our inspection and discussions with people afterwards showed us that the service was generally safe, responsive and caring.

We found that there were systems in place to ensure that the premises were clean, and that people were protected against the risks associated with infections.

There were adequate systems in place to ensure that medicines were received, stored, administered, and disposed of safely.

Staff were selected and recruited in a way that ensured they were suitably qualified and fit for the job.

We found that people were cared for by staff that were sufficiently trained and supported in order for them to meet people's needs.

We found that there was a process in place for reporting complaints and people were aware of how to raise a complaint.

We saw that records relating to people using the service, staff and day to day running of the service were accurate. However records relating to people using the service were not stored securely and could be easily accessed by anyone visiting the service.

We directly observed care within the service, so as to help us determine what it was like for customers living at Fairview Road. We found that staff interactions with customers were positive and staff were seen to have a good rapport with individuals. Staff on duty at the time of our inspection were noted to have a good understanding and awareness of customer's support needs. Customers told us that they liked living at Fairview Road and found the new staff employed at the service to be nice. Staff confirmed to us that they liked working at the service and that staff morale was good.

Our findings showed that each customer had a detailed support plan identifying their specific care needs and how these were to be delivered and support by staff. Where concerns had been raised by customers there was evidence to show that these had been taken seriously and acted upon by the provider.

Improvements were required to ensure that an easy read summary in relation to 'how to make a complaint' was available for customers and a complaint log readily available for auditing purposes. While there have been significant changes to the staff team in recent months and customers were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard, we found no records available to confirm evidence of staffs training, induction or supervision.