Archived: Pulse - North Yorkshire

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, the staff who supported them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The agency had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. All staff had received training in this area and the staff we spoke with confirmed that they understood when an application should be made, and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

People received an assessment which helped to ensure that the agency was able to meet their needs. We saw care plans and risk assessments were in place to help ensure people's safety and welfare. Information was reviewed regularly to ensure that it was up to date and reflected any changes.

Systems to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations were evident. This helped to reduce the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Records were in place detailing how people should be cared for. Records were stored securely so that the information remained confidential and accessible only to those who needed them.

Is the service effective?

The home had appropriate arrangements in place for gaining people's consent. People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in decisions regarding their plans of care. This meant that staff were able to deliver care in a way that supported people.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. People told us that they were well cared for. People commented, 'My carers are excellent. They always turn up" and "This is a great service. My relative is well cared for and I can't praise them enough."

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was being provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that the agency had responded to suggestions made within questionnaires and people confirmed that the agency would respond to any concerns if they were unhappy. All of the people we spoke with confirmed that regular reviews took place and said that the service responded quickly to any changes in need.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. Staff confirmed that the management were supportive. The service has a new manager who is in the process of applying for registration with the Care Quality Commission. Some of the relatives we spoke with said that management systems needed to be improved upon, particularly where issues with staffing had been identified.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. One person told us "They talked to me in hospital about my care needs, I am very happy with the service I am getting."

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to prevent abuse happening. The staff we spoke with had received training in safeguarding adults and said that they would tell someone if they saw or heard anything inappropriate.

People were cared for by suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. All of the staff we spoke with confirmed that they received a high level of training and support which helped them to carry out their roles effectively.

There were a range of effective quality management systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. Both relatives and people living at the home said that they were able to express their views and opinions and would raise concerns if they had them.