Archived: Saddletree House

Is the service safe?

People told us that they felt safe living at Saddletree House. Their personal files included a range of risk assessments and these included procedures to safely manage risks.

Staff confirmed that consent has been sought from the people who use the service in relation to funding a holiday, the need for a yearly 'flu vaccination and for doctors' and dentists' appointments.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People's human rights were therefore properly recognised, respected and promoted.

Is the service effective?

People told us that staff encouraged them to be as independent as possible. We saw, in one person's care plan, photographs of food that the person had baked, with staff support.

Staff encouraged, and supported, people to take risks that increased their independence. These risks had been thoroughly assessed and recorded.

People were fully involved in planning their lives. We saw recorded evidence of this in their care plans through individual signatures. Staff also confirmed this and one staff member spoke about the way they had involved people in planning and funding a holiday. Care plans guided staff to meet people's needs in a consistent and informed way.

Staff had been provided with the training needed to meet the needs of the people who use the service. Staff also had positive views on the service. One member of staff told us that they felt, '100%', supported in their job.

Is the service caring?

People's privacy and dignity were respected. One person told us, 'Staff stand outside the bathroom [when I'm having a bath].'

We observed, and heard, staff speaking respectfully with the people who use the service.

People told us that staff respected their likes and dislikes and thought that their needs were being met. The relative we spoke with told us that staff, 'know [my relative] inside out.'

Is the service responsive?

People's personal records showed that staff were encouraged to take an approach to people which was centred on their individual needs. People's personal preferences, and likes and dislikes, were recorded and support was provided that met people's wishes.

There were meetings for the people who use the service. One staff member we spoke with described the actions that had been taken following some requests for change, from people who use the service.

Is the service well-led?

Staff described a sound set of values upon which the service was based. These included fulfilling people's need for choice, dignity and respect, and treating the service as people's own home.

The service had a quality assurance system which identified, assessed and managed risks to people's health, safety and welfare. However, the service was not comprehensively monitoring the quality of service that people received. The views of people's relatives, staff or external professionals were not sought. This reduced the effectiveness of the service's quality monitoring system.

There was no development or business plan in place. This meant that the manager had no monitoring record of action plans and priorities set to improve the quality of service provision.

We have asked the provider to tell us what they will do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to quality assurance.

We found that care plans were in place and these included detailed, personalised information describing people's choices and wishes and how best they could be supported. We found that people were involved appropriately in their care planning.

At our last visit we found that the provider did not have effective recruitment and selection procedures in place. However, at this visit we saw effective procedures had been introduced and maintained.

We found that staff were not always supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard as they were not offered regular supervision and appraisal. Some staff had not completed mandatory basic training at the time of our visit.

We found that there were systems in place to handle complaints and people told us they would feel confident about raising concerns. There was information available to people about how to make a complaint and it was in a format accessible to them.