Archived: Northmore Residential Care Home

Northmore House provides personal care and accommodation for up to nine older people. There were six people using the service at the time of our inspection. We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we ask:

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

The service was safe. People had been protected from abuse and avoidable harm. People who were using the service had benefited from safe care and support, due to good decision making and appropriate management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

People lived in a clean environment where the risk of infections/cross infection was reduced. The provider had ensured that people who used the service were in safe, accessible surroundings that promoted their wellbeing. The service had been led effectively to manage risk and improve the quality of care provided.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. No applications had been submitted. The manager understood when an application should be made and how to do so.

Is the service effective?

The service was effective. We saw that staff understood people's care and support needs and that they knew the people well. We were told by one person we spoke with that, 'staff know the residents very well. They know how to work with them and avoid any upsets'. We found the service had quickly identified occasions when people's health had declined and had taken timely action to ensure medical needs were assessed and treated.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring. People were supported by staff who were attentive and courteous. We saw that staff were patient and encouraging when they provided people with support. People we spoke with told us that staff were very caring. We were told and we saw that staff spend time with people and that people enjoyed and valued their company. People's privacy, dignity and independence had been promoted.

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive. People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. We saw that people had been supported and had been helped in areas that were important to them. Records illustrated that people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded. Care and support had been provided that met their wishes. One person told us that they had, 'no complaints. Could not fault it'. We read comments from another which described that they, 'were more than happy with the care and support X receives'.

Is the service well led?

The service was well led. We noted that the manager carried out regular audits including areas such as, care plans, risk assessments, maintenance of the premises, cleanliness and hygiene. Staff were clear about their roles, responsibilities and the ethos of the home. Staff told us that the manager was very supportive and accessible. We found the provider had regularly sought of views and opinions of relatives / representatives of people using the service and had taken these views into account and acted on them.

Staff demonstrated how well they knew the people living at the home and that they understood their diverse and sometimes complex needs.

People were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink.

Medicines were safely stored and administered. We saw staff administered medications and that people were given their medicines at the right times.

Staff were available in sufficient numbers to care for people and they received the training and support they needed to carry out their roles.

Staff received appropriate professional development.

We found that there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and that people living at the home and families were listened to and involved in the running of the service.