Archived: Seymour House - Northwood

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

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.

' Is the service caring?

People spoke positively to us during the inspection about the staff and the care they received. We observed staff were caring and people were treated with dignity and respect. One relative told us that the staff were caring. We saw staff offering drinks to people throughout the day and staff responded quickly when people called for them.

Staff were aware of people's preferences, interests and diverse needs and people's wishes were taken into account.

' Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home so that these and their wishes could be met. We saw that where some people preferred to stay in their bedrooms, one member of staff was based on that floor. This enabled them to talk with people, respond quickly to any queries and ensure people were comfortable and happy.

Regular medicine reviews were carried out by the GP in response to people's changing needs. This meant that staff responded to people's individual medicine needs.

Regular communication took place such as daily handovers between members of staff. This ensured that time was taken to discuss people's needs, including any changes in in their and talk through appointments and meetings. We saw handover information was recorded each day so that staff were fully aware of important details when working on shift.

' Is the service safe?

People received their medicines safely and by staff that were trained.

Recruitment practices were detailed and checks were completed to make sure appropriate staff supported people using the service.

The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The manager was fully aware of when a DoLS application needed to be made and staff were aware of how to support people who did not always have the ability and capacity to give consent to the care and support they needed.

' Is the service effective?

New staff underwent induction training and all staff had opportunities to attend training so that they could care and support people effectively.

Staff valued people's diverse needs and supported people to follow their preferred religious beliefs and practices. People were encouraged to make informed decisions about their daily lives. One person told us they like to be independent and take care of their personal care. They confirmed that staff just checked on them to ensure they were safe and did not require assistance.

People's individual needs had been assessed and were regularly reviewed. Care records reflected people's individual needs, choices and preferences. People had access to health and social care professionals to meet their needs.

' Is the service well led?

The manager actively sought the views of people and their representatives so that improvements could be made to the service. One person who uses the service said 'I would talk with the manager if I had a concern'.

All the staff we spoke with said they were supported to carry out their role and were provided with support and training. They told us if they had any concerns they would talk these through with the manager. Staff received one to one supervision and attended staff meetings so they could talk about their work and develop their skills and knowledge.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, this included holding meetings for people who use the service, carrying out annual surveys and various audits such as medicine audits to ensure people safely received their prescribed medicines.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We viewed four care records and these provided staff with a good picture of each person, their needs and how these were to be met. A range of activities was provided in the home. People's interests and preferences were identified and where possible activities were provided based on the information staff knew about people.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. People or their relatives that we spoke with said if they were not happy with the way they were being looked after they would be confident to raise any concerns with the manager or other staff.

One person told us 'there are enough staff working in the home', another person said, 'if I use the call bell staff come as quickly as they can.' We asked three relatives who confirmed that there were sufficient numbers of staff and that they had no concerns.

The staff received ongoing support from the manager and training was provided in subjects relevant to their roles and responsibilities. This included training on food hygiene, infection control and moving and handling.