You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 17 April 2014
Date of Publication: 14 May 2014
Inspection Report published 14 May 2014 PDF

Overview

Inspection carried out on 17 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We reviewed the evidence we had obtained during our inspection and used this to answer five key questions we always ask: Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

This is a summary of our findings. If you would like to see the evidence supporting this summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We found the premises to be clean which meant that the risks of infection were being effectively minimised. It was also well maintained. We noted systems in place to ensure the safety of people living, working and visiting the home.

People told us they felt safe with the staff. Many of the staff had worked at the home for several years. One person told us, �They know exactly what they�re doing when they help me."

We spoke with the acting manager about the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They told us they had no concerns about anyone in the home coming under the criteria which would necessitate an application to deprive someone of their liberty. There were aware of what action they would need to take should such a circumstance arise. This demonstrated to us that where there were concerns that the appropriate action would be taken.

Is the service effective?

Most people told us that they were happy with the care and support that they received. A few mentioned that calls bells could be answered more promptly on occasion. We were satisfied that staff knew people well and that this enabled them to provide a good level of care to people. One person�s relative said, �To be honest, [their family member] has a much better standard of life here than when they were at home.�

Is the service caring?

The service was encouraging people to spend more time in communal areas. Easter egg hunts and an Easter bonnet competition had been arranged for the coming Easter weekend. It was clear that a lot of thought and attention to detail had been put in to the design of �The Mardle�, a traditionally styled tea room, which had been very attractively decorated and furnished.

We observed that staff were kind and attentive. People were not being rushed when tasks were carried out. One person pointed out one member of staff to us, smiled broadly and told us, �They�re all pretty good, but [person�s name] is my favourite!�

Is the service responsive?

We found that people�s needs were met. Where staff required input from external health professionals referrals and advice were sought promptly. Improvements had been made since our last inspection in December 2013 which meant that assessments were carried out promptly and life and social history information was available for staff to enable them to better understand and support people.

Is the service well led?

We were satisfied that the service was well managed. Staff told us that the new management arrangements had taken a while to adjust to but that the change was for the better. They felt that the service was improving. This view was supported by the substantial reduction in the numbers of complaints the service received. The acting manager was aware that improvements were required in certain areas, for example the catering arrangements, but were confident that the service would continue to improve.

Substantial systems were in place to review the quality of the service delivery on a regular basis.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulated activities at this location at the time of our inspection. Their name appears because the de-registration process had not been completed at the time of this inspection.