You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 9 April 2014
Date of Publication: 2 May 2014
Inspection Report published 02 May 2014 PDF

Overview

Inspection carried out on 9 April 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection helped answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The provider acted in accordance with legal requirements where people did not have the capacity to consent. Staff had an awareness of the Mental Capacity Act and deprivation of liberty safeguards. Staff understood their obligations with respect to people's rights and choices when they appeared to lack mental capacity to make informed and appropriate decisions. The manager told us most of the staff had received training around the Mental Capacity Act in 2013.

Each person's care file had risk assessments which covered areas of potential risk such as pressure ulcers, falls and nutrition. When people were identified as being at risk, their plans showed the actions required to manage these risks. These included the provision of specialist equipment such as pressure relieving mattresses, hoists and walking aids.

Staff demonstrated good knowledge and awareness of their responsibilities for infection prevention and control and there was evidence staff had received relevant training. Two members of staff we spoke with during the inspection confirmed they had completed infection control training.

Staffing levels were assessed depending on people's need and occupancy levels. The staffing levels were then adjusted accordingly. They said where there was a shortfall, for example when staff were off sick or on leave, existing staff worked additional hours to make sure there was continuity in service

We spoke with four visitors and they told us they were pleased with the care, treatment and support their relative�s received at Cymar House. They said the staff were quick to inform them of any significant changes in their relative�s general health and they were always made to feel very welcome when they visited. One person said, �I cannot fault the service provided; people are well looked after.�

Is the service effective?

The home had a good working relationship with other healthcare professionals and always followed their guidance and advice. The input of other healthcare professionals involved in people's care and treatment was clearly recorded in their care plan.

People�s files contained pre-admission assessments, which showed that people's health, personal and social care needs were assessed before they moved into the home.

Is the service caring?

Visitors we spoke with told us they were very happy with the care provided and in their opinion people were well looked after. They described staff as friendly, patient and caring.

People who used the service told us they were happy with the staff at Cymar House and with the care they provided. One person said, �The staff are very good, lovely people." Another person told us, �Excellent people.�

We found the care staff we spoke with demonstrated a good knowledge of people�s needs and were able to explain how individuals preferred their care and support to be delivered. We found the atmosphere within the home was warm and friendly and we saw staff approached individual people in a way which showed they knew the person well and knew how best to assist them.

The provider�s quality assurance feedback from people who used the service, relatives and visitors, showed there was a high level of satisfaction. All felt the quality of care was excellent or good. The registered provider had analysed the results and identified what they could improve and develop.

Is the service responsive?

People and their families were involved in discussions about their care and the risk factors associated with this. Individual choices and decisions were documented in the care plans and reviewed on a regular basis.

We saw the complaints log and saw any complaints made had been acted upon appropriately and any actions taken had been fed back to the person making the complaint.

Is 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.

The service had a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure people received a good quality service at all times.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.