You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 July 2017

Florence House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to seven people. There were seven people living in the home at the time of the inspection. The service supports older people who may be living with dementia.

This was the services first inspection since registering with us in February 2016. The first person moved into the home in March 2016.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 were receiving care that was responsive and effective. Care plans were in place that described how the person would like to be supported. The care plans provided staff with information to support the person effectively. People were evidently involved in the planning of their care. Comprehensive monthly reviews were completed involving the person. Other health and social professionals were involved in the care of the people living at Florence House.

People’s rights were upheld and they were involved in decisions about their care and support. Where decisions were more complex, these had been discussed with relatives and other health care professionals to ensure it was in the person’s best interest. Staff were knowledgeable about legislation to protect people in relation to making decisions and safeguards in respect of deprivation of liberty safeguards. Appropriate applications had been made in respect of these safeguards ensuring people were protected.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because there were clear procedures in place to recognise and respond to abuse and staff had been trained in how to follow the procedures. Systems were in place to ensure people were safe including risk management, checks on the environment and safe recruitment processes. Safe systems were in place to ensure that people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff were caring and supportive and demonstrated a good understanding of their roles in supporting people. There was a real commitment to ensure staff had the appropriate training to support people effectively. Staff were supported in their roles. Systems were in place to ensure open communication including team meetings and daily handovers. A handover is where important information is shared between the staff during shift changeovers. This ensured important information was shared between staff enabling them to provide care that was safe, effective and consistent.

People were involved in activities in the home and the local community. These were organised taking into consideration the interests of the people. Staff recognised at times the home was very busy with visitors so activities were organised in the evenings. When there were lots of visitors, it was noted the lounge area was not big enough. People were encouraged to see their relatives in their bedroom or if a large party then they could access a day centre when it was not in use.

People’s views were sought through care reviews, house meetings and surveys and acted upon. Systems were in place to ensure that complaints were responded to, and learning from these was taken to improve the service provided.

The registered manager and the provider completed regular checks on the systems that were in operation in the home to ensure they were effective. Where there were any shortfalls an action plan had been developed to improve the service. The registered manager was in the process of making some improvements to the activities that people were doing and exploring local clubs and social events. There was a robust plan in place.

People were provided with a safe, effective, caring and responsive service that was well led. The organisation’s values and philosophy were clearly expla

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 July 2017

The service was safe.

People's medicines were managed safely and risks to people's health and welfare were well managed.

People's risk assessments were updated following any accidents

and incidents.

People were protected from the risks of abuse. Robust recruitment procedures were in place.

People's needs were met by ensuring there were sufficient staff on duty.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 July 2017

The service was effective.

People’s rights were upheld and they were involved in decisions about their care and support. Staff were knowledgeable about the legislation to protect people in relation to making decisions and safeguards in respect of deprivation of liberty.

People were supported by staff that knew them well and had received appropriate training. Other health and social care professionals were involved in the care of people and their advice was acted upon.

The premises were decorated and maintained to a good standard. The lounge/dining area was cramped when there were visitors to the home.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 July 2017

The service was caring.

People were cared for with respect and dignity. Staff were knowledgeable about the individual needs of people and responded appropriately. Staff were polite and friendly in their approach.

Staff knew people well and were able to tell us how people liked to receive their care. People were supported to maintain contact with friends and family.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 July 2017

The service was responsive.

People received care that was responsive to their needs. Care plans described how people wanted to be supported. These were tailored to the person and kept under review.

People were supported to take part in regular activities both in the home and the community.

People could be confident that if they had any concerns these would be responded to appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 July 2017

The service was well led.

The culture of the service was open with the emphasis that it was people’s home. Staff were clear on their roles and aims and objectives of the service and supporting people in a personalised way.

Staff described a cohesive team lead by a registered manager who worked alongside them.

Robust quality assurance processes ensured the safety and quality of the service. Action plans had been developed to enhance and improve the service.