You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 April 2018

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 8 February 2018.

The home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for adults and who may have a dementia related illness. A maximum of 28 people can live at the home. There were 27 people living at home on the day of the inspection.

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.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Requires Improvement overall with the rating of inadequate for safe. This was because the provider had failed to ensure systems and processes were in place to assess, monitor and mitigate risk to people living in the home. The rating for safe has been improved to Requires Improvement following this inspection as the provider will need to demonstrate that the changes made are effective and sustainability over time. At this inspection we found the service had improved and was now Good overall.

The provider was recruiting additional night staff to ensure there were enough staff at night to meet people’s needs. The new staff were planned to start within a few days. People told they felt safe living at the home and that staff supported them with maintaining their safety. Staff told us about how they minimised the risk to people’s safety and that they would report any suspected the risk of abuse to the management team. People got the help needed with staff offering guidance or support with their care that reduced their risk of harm.

There were staff available to meet people’s care needs or answer any requests for support in a timely way. People told us they received their medicines from senior care staff who managed their medicines in the right way. People also felt that if they needed extra pain relief or other medicines as needed these were provided. Staff wore protective gloves and aprons to reduce the risks of spreading infection within in the home.

People told us staff knew their care and support needs. Staff told us they understood the needs of people and their knowledge was supported by the training they were given. Staff knowledge reflected the needs of people who lived at the home. People told us staff acted on their wishes and their agreement had been sought before staff carried out a task. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People who lack mental capacity to consent to arrangements for necessary care or treatment can only be deprived of their liberty when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. The procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People told us they enjoyed their meals, had a choice of the foods they enjoyed and we saw where needed people were supported to eat and drink enough to keep them healthy. People had access to other healthcare professionals that provided treatment, advice and guidance to support their health needs.

People told us they enjoyed spending time with staff and spent time chatting and relaxing with them. We saw people’s privacy and dignity was maintained with staff supporting them to do this where needed. People’s day to day preferences were listened to by staff and those choices and decisions were respected. Staff told us it was important to promote a person’s independence and ensure people had as much involvement as possible in their care and support.

People were involved in planning their care and if requested their relatives were involved. The care plans reflected people’s life histories, prefe

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 19 April 2018

The service was not always safe.

There were sufficient staff throughout the day, however at night more staff would o ensure people’s needs at were met in a timely way.

People felt safe and protected from the risk of abuse.

People received their medicines where needed. The home was clean and the provider had systems in place to manage the risk of the spread of infections.

Incidents and accidents were monitored and used to make improvements in the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 April 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported to make their own decisions about their care.

People’s care needs and preferences were supported by trained staff.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 April 2018

The service was caring.

People received care that met their needs. Staff provided care that was respectful of their privacy and dignity and took account of people’s individual preferences.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 April 2018

The service was responsive.

People were promoted to make everyday choices and had the opportunity to engage in their personal interests and hobbies.

People and their representatives who used the service were encouraged to raise any comments or concerns with the manager.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 April 2018

The service was well-led.

People and staff were complimentary about the overall service. There was open communication within the staff team and the provider regularly checked the quality of the service provided.