During the inspection we looked at evidence to answer five questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people who used the service and staff told us.
If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
During our visit we spoke with seven people who used the service, two relatives, and eight members of staff including the person in charge.
We found there were 25 people living in the home at the time of our inspection.
We found there was no registered manager at the time of our visit, however the person in charge told us they had submitted their application to CQC and were awaiting the application to be processed. We checked our records and found the application had been accepted by our registration team.
Is the service safe?
People who used the service were able to make their own decisions and staff supported people to be independent whenever possible.
We found one urgent Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DOLs) referral had been made, but the person in charge told us the referral was not accepted as a safeguarding. The management team were aware of the new guidelines that had been put in place in March 2014 regarding Deprivation of Liberties for people who used the service.
We found where appropriate people received a Mental Capacity and Best Interest Assessment to ensure decisions were made in their best Interest.
Records showed that Disclosure and Barring Service checks had been completed prior to staff starting work.
The service involves people who used the service and their families in regular reviews and assessments of their care and treatment.
Is the service effective?
We found care plans had been reviewed on a monthly basis and changes were made accordingly. We saw on one person's file that they had been involved with other health care professionals.
Visiting health care professionals told us they had a positive relationship with staff and their recommendations and guidance was always followed.
The service ensured staff had the right knowledge, qualifications and skills to meet people's needs. There were systems in place to address any gaps in training needs.
We saw people's views and choices were taken into consideration, when refurbishments took place within the home.
Is the service caring?
We found staff were attentive to people's needs and interacted with people who used the service throughout our visit. We observed staff speaking to people in a calm and polite manner.
We spoke with two relatives and they both told us they felt their family members were well cared for. One person who used the service told us they were very well looked after.
We found the care plans were person centred and contained life histories, likes, dislikes, cultural and spiritual needs. Staff were knowledgeable about individuals and how they should meet their needs.
Is the service responsive?
People's support plans reflected their needs and staff responded to people's changing needs when required. We found one person's needs had changed and they were required to be repositioned every two hours. Their care plan had been updated and we could evidence that changes had been made.
People who lacked the capacity to make certain decisions were supported by staff who understood their needs. We observed staff responding to people when they asked for assistance.
We saw relevant activities taking place during our visit. The provider employed an activities person to ensure people's social needs were met.
People who used the service, relatives and staff were able to voice their views and opinions. We saw meetings and surveys had taken place. We saw feedback and experiences had been recorded. Where relevant the provider had responded to any issues or concerns people may have had.
We found one out of seven care files had not been up dated since the person was admitted to the home for respite. We spoke with the person in charge. They told us it was company policy to have a quick guide to care in place and care plans would be updated between six to eight weeks after a person arrived at the home for respite. We could not find any quick guide to care on the care file we looked at. The person in charge addressed this issue during our visit.
Is the service well-led?
There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. Appropriate audits and checks were in place to ensure people received care accordingly.
There were policies and procedures in place to manage risk and staff told us the policies were easily accessible if they needed to access them.
We saw staff training was up to date and staff had attended relevant training in areas such as challenging behaviour, DOLs, mental capacity and safeguarding.
Staff told us they had enough information within each person's care plan to ensure their needs were met. Staff had good knowledge of individual's needs and how to support them.
Confidential records were kept secure and locked in the office or other designated areas. We observed staff returned the care files promptly to where they were kept once they had finished with them. This meant there were appropriate arrangements in place to ensure records were securely kept.