Archived: Falcon House

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good as Falcon House met all relevant fundamental standards of care.

The service was safe. Staff received regular refresher training for safeguarding vulnerable people and demonstrated good knowledge of how to keep people safe. Robust recruitment procedures ensured staff suitability for their role and appropriate checks were completed. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs within the service and out in the community. People’s individual needs were assessed, risks were identified and minimised with effective support plans in place. Medicines were stored, administered and managed safely.

The service was effective. Staff had adequate training and supervisions to ensure people were supported and their needs were effectively met. The registered manager and staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to support people’s independence and to have maximum choice and control of their lives. People were provided information enabling them to choose healthy lifestyles and supported to maintain these lifestyles. Health care professionals were liaised with in order to manage people’s change in physical and mental health needs.

The service was caring. Staff were friendly and patient towards people and positive relationships had been created within Falcon House. Staff understood people and their personal preferences. People told us and we saw that privacy and dignity was respected.

The service was responsive. People were involved in the planning of their support for continued wellbeing. People chose and were supported to undertake activities to improve their health, creativity and language skills. Work placement opportunities had also been applied for which people successfully volunteered for. Complaints procedures were in place and made readily available to people.

The service was well led. Views of the quality of the service were sought from people, relative’s and health professionals. The registered manager felt supported by the provider and in turn staff felt supported by the registered manager, which displayed good leadership. The registered manager had a visible presence within the service and people, relatives and staff used the open door policy effectively. The quality monitoring of the service was robust and the provider was responsive to feedback from authorities to drive improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

People appeared relaxed with staff and no concerns were raised. Staff members were observed speaking with people with dignity and respect and involving them in their care. Staff members were viewed helping people to make choices on how they wanted their care provided and what they wanted to do with their day.

People told us they knew how to raise any concerns. They added they found the staff approachable and could take any concerns they may have to them.

The environment was well maintained and met people's needs.

We found that the service was meeting the personal, emotional and healthcare needs of people who used the service. Care plans had been reviewed and updated within the past six months and risk assessments were in place where a specific risk had been identified.

Both people who used the service told us that they felt able to raise any concerns they had with staff and that they would respond appropriately. We were told that there were regular house meeting for people to raise any concerns or issues.

We saw that staff had been provided with the appropriate training and support to carry out their role effectively and safely.

There were systems in place that ensured people who used the service had been consulted and were able to feedback about the care they received.