You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 14 April 2014
Date of Publication: 15 May 2014
Inspection Report published 15 May 2014 PDF

Overview

Inspection carried out on 14 April 2014

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we asked the provider, staff and people who used the service specific questions; is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, and the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. They said they felt safe. We found safeguarding procedures to be robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The manager told us about an application that had been submitted. We also found relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. This meant people were safeguarded as required.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk. Some bathrooms needed refurbishment. The regional operations manager told us there were plans in place to have these refurbished soon.

The registered manager set the staff rotas, they told us they took people�s care needs into account when making decisions about the staffing numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped to ensure that people�s needs were met.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that any unsafe practice was identified; this helped to protect people who used the service.

Is the service effective?

There was an advocacy service available if people needed it, this meant people could access additional support when required.

People�s health and care needs were assessed with them, and they or their representatives were involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist dietary, social, mobility, equipment and dementia care needs had been identified in care plans where required. Some people said they had been involved in writing them and they reflected their current needs.

People�s needs were taken into account with signage and the layout of the service enabling people to move around freely and safely. The premises had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people with physical, memory and mental health impairments.

Visitors confirmed they were able to see people in private and that visiting times were flexible.

Is the service caring?

People told us they were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, �I never feel rushed by the staff that help me, they don�t do everything for me and help me to do things for myself�. A relative said, �I visit my relative almost every day and the staff are good at listening to any concerns that I raise and always respond appropriately."

People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised, we saw these had generally been addressed by the provider.

People�s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs were recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people�s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly.

People we spoke with knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. Two people said that they had made a complaint and both were satisfied with the outcomes. We looked at how complaints had been dealt with, and found that the responses had been open, thorough, and timely. This meant people were assured that complaints would be investigated and action taken when necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system. The records we looked at showed any shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and the quality assurance systems in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service.