Archived: Zapuzino

Zapuzino provides residential care for up to six older people. The home is a semi-detached house with accommodation on two floors. Three people live there and have access to a communal lounge and dining area. One bedroom has an ensuite facility and there is a bathroom on the first floor and a shower room on the ground floor. There is a small rear garden accessible to most people. At the time of our inspection three people were living there.

There was 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. There was one breach of legal requirements at the last inspection in March 2015. At our comprehensive inspection on 9 June 2016 the provider had followed their action plan which they told us would be completed on 22 June 2015 with regard to medicine management and this Regulation had been met.

People told us they felt safe in the home. People and a relative told us the home was like a family where they were treated with respect and kindness. Staff knew how to keep people safe and were trained to report any concerns. People were supported by staff that were well trained and had access to training to develop their knowledge.

People were provided with personalised care and were supported to make their own choices and decisions where possible. Staff knew what they valued and how they liked to be supported. Peoples care was regularly reviewed and progress was monitored and recorded. People were treated with kindness and compassion and people told us staff were very good when they supported them with their care. Healthcare professionals supported people when required.

People told us they liked the food and could choose what they wanted. Fresh fruit, fresh vegetables and homemade cakes were always available and people had sufficient drinks they liked. People had activities to choose from and there had been additional interests included recently. This year staff had brought rabbits in for people to see and touch and the new hedgehog house had proved an interesting talking point. There had been a programme of forthcoming events for the first six months of the year which included trips into Cirencester town and a local garden centre.

The registered manager and business manager monitored the quality of the service with regular checks and when necessary action was taken. People and their relative’s views and concerns were taken seriously. They contributed in meetings and regular reviews of the service and improvements were made. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager and business manager who were available to speak to people their relatives and staff. Staff meetings were held and staff were able to contribute to the running of the home.

We found significant improvements had been made. Care plans were comprehensive and up to date, and provided evidence that people's needs had been assessed and care planned to meet those needs. Records evidenced that people received the care and support they needed.

The home provided us with an action plan which described what actions they would take to achieve compliance. We returned to the home to see if improvements had been made.

Our observations and feedback from people who lived in the home indicated that people were happy and well care for. However we were concerned that record keeping remained poor. There was insufficient detailed documentary evidence to demonstrate that people's needs had been properly assessed or that their needs were regularly reviewed.

Systems to monitor quality and safety had been improved and there was evidence that people's views were listened to and acted upon.

People told us that they were treated with dignity and respect and we observed staff supporting them to make choices and to maintain as much independence as possible. People were happy with the care they received but record keeping did not always support this. The standard of record keeping was generally poor. We were particularly concerned that the care record for one frail and vulnerable person did not demonstrate that their needs and the risks to their health and welfare had been adequately assessed or their needs met.

The home was clean and tidy and we observed staff taking appropriate steps to minimise the risk and spread of infection. Staff told us they were well supported with regular training. Staff practice was regularly supervised but was not recorded. Some staff had not received performance appraisal.

Systems to monitor quality and safety in the home had improved since our last visit, although there was still some work to do to formalise these systems. The home had not received any recent complaints but people who used services had access to a complaints policy. The policy required updating.