You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 October 2017

The inspection began on the 15 August 2017 and was unannounced. It continued on the 16 August 2017 and was announced.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and residential or nursing care for up to 60 people. The service does not provide nursing care. At the time of our inspection the service was providing residential care to 42 older people some of whom were living with a dementia. The home is over two floors and bedrooms have en-suites. People have access to a number of sitting and dining areas. The first floor is accessed via a lift. The ground floor provides access to a secure garden area.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People and their families told us they felt the service was safe. Staff had been trained to recognise any potential signs of abuse or poor practice and understood their role in reporting concerns. Risks to people were assessed, regularly reviewed and staff understood the actions needed to minimise risks of harm to people whilst supporting their right to freedom and choice. People had their medicines ordered, stored and administered safely and risk assessments were completed and reviewed regularly for people who chose to self-administer medicines.

Staff had been recruited safely and provided with an induction and ongoing training and support to enable them to carry out their roles effectively. There were enough staff with the right skills to support people’s needs and choices.

Peoples eating and drinking needs were understood and met. This included allergies, likes and dislikes, textured diets and providing specialist crockery and cups to enable independence. People had a choice of hot and cold meal choices and snacks and drinks were always available throughout the home.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. A complaints policy was in place and when people had used it they had been listened to and had outcomes explained to them.

People and their families described the staff as caring, kind and patient. Staff understood people’s individual communication requirements and this had enabled them to support people in making decisions about their day to day lifes. People had their privacy and dignity respected and were enabled to be as independent as possible. When appropriate people had access to healthcare and were supported to appointments.

Pre admission assessments had been completed and the information had been used to create with people their care and support plans. These included peoples individual care needs, interests and friends and family important to them. People were encouraged to share skills and knowledge and maintain links and be involved with the wider community. A range of activities was available in groups or on an individual basis both inside and outside the home. Activities included people, their families and friends, the staff and their families and the wider community. Peoples skills, knowledge and experience were recognised and they were used to continue old or develop new links with the community. This meant people felt involved and valued.

People, their families and staff spoke positively about the leadership of the home and described the culture as open and inclusive. Staff spoke positively about teamwork, understood their roles and responsibilities and felt supported and appreciated. Methods of communication to the staff team were effective and this enabled staff to work together with common goals. Staff wholeheartedly supported the re

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 October 2017

The service was safe.

Staff had the skills and understood their role in identifying and reporting any potential concerns about abuse or poor practice.

People’s risks were assessed regularly and actions put in place to minimise any risk of harm understood and implemented by the staff team.

People were supported by enough staff that had been recruited safely.

Medicines were ordered, stored and administered safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 October 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had an induction and on-going training, supervision and opportunities for professional development that gave them the skills to carry out their roles effectively.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

Peoples eating and drinking needs were understood and met.

People had access to healthcare when it was needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 October 2017

The service was caring.

Staff were kind, caring and patient and had a relaxed, friendly, professional relationship with people.

People were involved in decisions about their care and had access to advocacy services.

People’s privacy, dignity and independence was respected.

Responsive

Outstanding

Updated 10 October 2017

The service was responsive.

Care was planned with people and reflected their individuality, interests, likes, dislikes and links with family, friends and the wider community.

Peoples individual skills, knowledge and experiences were recognised and valued.

A complaints process was in place and when used demonstrated that people were listened to and outcomes were shared with them. When actions had been identified they led to improvements in service delivery and staff learning.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 October 2017

The service was well led.

The culture was open and inclusive and positively supported people, their families and the staff team in decisions about the service.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and felt appreciated in their roles. Clear communication processes enabled team work to be effective in achieving good outcomes for people living in the home.

Links with clinical teams provided opportunities for service development and staff learning.

Quality assurance systems were effective in gathering feedback that enabled the service to continually develop service delivery.