You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 4 September 2014
Date of Publication: 2 October 2014
Inspection Report published 02 October 2014 PDF | 83.77 KB

Overview

Inspection carried out on 4 September 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection was completed by two inspectors and an expert by experience. During our visit we spoke with the registered manager and five care staff.

We found there were 30 people living in the home at the time of our inspection. We were able to speak with three people and four visiting relatives about their experiences of the care and support they received at Victoria Mews.

We carried out observations of care throughout the home. The evidence we collected helped us to answer five key questions: Is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary described what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, staff and visiting relatives told us.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary, please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We found staffing levels at the home met the needs of the people. The manager told us they had recently increased staffing numbers by one care staff member in the morning and one at night. Staff we spoke with told us this increase in staffing had helped. One staff member told us, "They gave us an extra staff member in the morning. It has definitely helped."

We found people received their medicines as prescribed. There were arrangements in place to protect people against the unsafe use and management of their medicines.

The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes and hospitals. The manager was aware of their responsibilities under the legislation and the potential impact of a recent court judgement in relation to DoLS. One person had a DoLS in place at the time of our inspection.

Is the service effective?

During our visit we spent time speaking with people who used the service and their relatives. People were happy with the care provided. One person said, "It's nice here, the staff are all kind, I like them." A relative told us, "I think she is quite happy here, they seem to look after her care needs. She is always clean and tidy, she seems so happy here. All the family are happy with her care."

Care plans provided staff with the information they needed to meet people's individual needs. Risk assessments had been completed to look at the risks associated with the care needs of each person and informed staff how they were to deliver care to reduce those risks. Care plans and risk assessments were evaluated regularly and reflective of the care provided. Staff we spoke with had a good knowledge about people's individual care needs and the support they required.

Is the service caring?

During our visit we saw staff were respectful towards people and always spoke to them by name. This meant people had a sense of identity and belonging within the home. One person told us, "I've been here quite a while, it's nice here, the staff look after me, I feel safe. They all use my Christian name, they all know me. The staff are respectful to me, never not nice."

Staff were patient with people and did not rush them when supporting them with care.

Is the service responsive?

We saw staff reassured people when they became agitated, concerned or distressed.

Since our last inspection in February 2014, we found the environment had been developed to make it more friendly to people with dementia. During our visit we saw staff engage people in conversations about their likes and histories. One person told us, "We have a garden which I go into sometimes; we have sing songs as well. They sit with me sometimes and we go through books, I would like to do it more." Another person said, "I do some of the activities like the quiz and bingo, but not many. Mostly I just sit around, I prefer that."

Is the service well led?

We saw the service maintained a system of audits and reports which identified areas where improvements were needed to ensure the service provided was safe and effective.

A recent analysis of falls within the home had identified that there were a higher number of falls in the evening. As a result there had been a change in a shift so there was an extra member of staff on duty during the risk period. This meant learning from incidents took place and appropriate changes were implemented.