Archived: Phylward House

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask.

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

Is the service safe?

Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. A relative we spoke with told us, 'I feel my relative is safe at the home.'

We spoke with staff about Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager told us that there had been no applications submitted. They told us they had received training in making an application and showed us the policy and procedures they followed. They told us that some staff had received relevant training and had access to the policy and procedures. Those staff told us they had received this training.

Is the service effective?

We saw that people were involved in their care and treatment. Care staff told us they worked closely with people. One staff member told us, 'We always try to respond to people in the service and gain an understanding of what they want. We also work closely with people's families.'

All the people had a keyworker who supported them with their care and welfare needs. Staff told us how they supported people with any appointments with their doctor, dentist or consultant. They told us that they needed to be flexible and responsive as people's care and support needs can change on a daily basis.

Each staff member we spoke with told us they felt supported in their work. They told us they received a full training programme and had regular supervision and appraisals. One person told us, 'We work as a staff team. We have regular staff briefings. We have all recently completed our training in epilepsy'. They all told us that they felt supported by the manager and could approach them at any time for support or to raise any issues or concerns.

Is the service caring?

We saw staff communicated well with people and were able to explain things in a way which could be easily understood. People were not rushed when care was delivered and we saw staff interactions with people were caring.

We saw staff treated people with respect and dignity. All the people we spoke with told us they were very happy with the care they received.

Is the service responsive?

We saw staff would respond to any requests for support. A relative we spoke with told us, 'The staff are great. My relative has complex needs and they have really supported them well. I am very happy with the service and confident with the care my relative receives'.

People's care needs had been reviewed at least every month. We saw when people's requirements had changed the provider had responded appropriately and reviewed the care and support they delivered in line with these changes. Care records had been updated to reflect the person's current needs.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a registered manager in post who showed us there was an effective system to regularly assess the quality of service people received. We found the views and opinions of people, relatives and staff had been taken into account.

We saw the home had systems in place which ensured managers and staff learnt from any accidents, complaints, whistleblowing reports or investigations. This helped reduce the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Staff told us they understood their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and quality assurance processes were in place.

We saw that people were encouraged to make day to day decisions for themselves. They were supported to make appropriate decisions when they were not able to do this for themselves. People's individual lifestyles were promoted.

The care plans were comprehensive and included pictorial information about their wishes and aspirations as well as the help and support they needed. Staff had a good knowledge of the dietary requirements of people who used the service and provided appropriate support.

We saw that medication was managed safely and people received their medication in line with the prescriber's instructions.

Staff received training to ensure they had the skills necessary to meet the needs of each person. Staff also received support through supervision and appraisals.

The manager told us about a range of health and safety audits which were carried out by the provider. For example, the provider carried out regular maintenance checks, portable appliance tests, fire safety checks and hot water temperature checks. Equipment used within the service was also regularly serviced. This helped to keep people safe.

A relative told us that they were always kept informed about any accidents, incidents or meetings about the person who used the service. They told us "They are very settled and well cared for. Staff bring them to visit us now" and "We have peace of mind about the support our relative gets, the staff are wonderful"

The accommodation was well maintained and equipment used in the home was seen to be checked at regular intervals. This ensured it was safe to use.

There were enough staff on duty to provide people with the support they required. Staff told us that the staffing levels were adequate and they only found it difficult when someone was away from work due to ill health and their shifts could not be covered.

We saw a copy of the complaints policy. It provided clear guidance on what to do if someone had a complaint. People who used the service had a copy of the complaints policy in picture format in their rooms.