Archived: Leatham

People who lived at Leatham were not able to communicate verbally and so we spent time speaking with staff, reviewing records and observing people in the home. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report. We used the evidence to answer five questions.

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment at the home had been well maintained and serviced regularly. There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people who lived there. We spent time observing people and saw they were cared for safely. Staff told us that they felt they were able to provide safe and effective care because of a high standard of training and management support.

Staff records demonstrated that mandatory training was up to date and staff were trained to meet the complex needs of people. Staff were trained in caring for people with epilepsy, moving and handling, infection control, autism awareness and end of life care.

The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. Staff had completed an appropriate referral for one person, which had resulted in Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards orders being authorised by the relevant authority.

Is the service effective?

During our visit we spent time observing people enjoying activities with staff and being supported to move around the home. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of people's care and support needs and knew them well. For example, we noted that staff had a good understanding of people's complex communication needs and were able to interpret people's feelings and needs and tailor their own communication accordingly.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living at the home and told us they were able to put their training into practice.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people, especially when they needed help moving around. Staff took into account the complex needs of people when planning activities so they could take part in these safely. Staff told us they worked hard to make sure their training was applied to the individual needs of people so they could be supported to take part in activities important to them.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home and these were checked by regular reviews, which people themselves were involved in. People's needs assessments included an assessment of their capacity to make decisions as well as consideration of their dietary and nutrition requirements.

People's preferences and interests were acted on by staff who used monthly meetings to support people to meet their needs and goals. People had access to activities designed to stimulate them and they were able to influence the running of the home.

Is the service well led?

At the time of our inspection the service had a registered manager in place. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and management support helped them to do their job effectively.

Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

We were supported in this inspection by an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. We asked the expert by experience to spend time with the people using the service to find out their views about what it was like to live there.

The expert by experience told us that they were very impressed by the way that the staff team treated the people at the home.

During the inspection, the staff members on duty were observed speaking to people in a kind and respectful way. We also observed that the people were clean and well groomed.

We found that people who were using the service were receiving the care and support they needed.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. They also had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service.

We found the provider did not have a system of formally recording consent within peoples care plans.

We found people who use the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.