Aucklands Care

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 5 and 8 January 2018. At the time of this inspection there were eight people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in post who has worked at the home for many years. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Aucklands Care provides a small, highly effective service for people living with dementia. Part of the home’s success lay in the provider ensuring staff were trained to a high standard using a recognised dementia care training package that understands people's behaviours, including the way they communicate, as having meaning.

The provider also maintained staffing levels that allowed staff to devote time with people and provided good leadership that allowed this model of care to be delivered effectively. Staff had also been provided with specialist training in other conditions affected by people such as epilepsy and mental health to ensure people’s needs were met. The staff team were therefore able to deliver care in line with best practice.

Local commissioners viewed the home as a valuable resource as the service had provided placements with good outcomes for people whose care needs could not be met in other services.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate in their interactions with people and very knowledgeable about their histories likes and dislikes. They were able to diffuse situations and divert people to better mood states through their interactions because of this very person centred approach to working with people.

People were kept safe as the provider had taken appropriate steps and had good systems in place to protect people. Staff had received training in safeguarding and people’s needs had been assessed with plans to mitigate risks that may be involved in the delivery of care. The premises had also been assessed and made as safe as possible for people. Accidents and incidents were recorded, monitored and action taken if necessary.

Staff were recruited in line with robust policies and all the necessary checks had been carried out.

There were good systems to make sure medicines were administered as prescribed.

People had an up to date comprehensive care plans in place so that staff could refer to these and deliver consistent care. The care we observed was consistent with people’s plans and they received a highly personalised service.

The service was compliant with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to make decisions. Where they did not have capacity for specific decisions, the home followed the requirements and principles of the MCA in arriving at ‘best interest’ decisions on their behalf. There were also robust systems to make sure that people were only deprived of their liberty in accordance with the Act, and that any conditions of that deprivation be applied.

Staff were supported though indirect and formal supervision as well as having access to on call managers. This is ensured staff were motivated, trained to a high standard and able to work effectively with people living at the home.

The home was highly effective in working collaboratively with health services and social care services in meeting people’s health needs.

The premises had been adapted with signage to facilitate better care of people living with dementia. The home was clean, in good decorative repair and provided a ‘homely’ environment. People were encouraged as far as possible to be involved in decoration of the home.

People were provided with a good standard of food with their having choice of what they wanted to eat and their individual needs catered for.

Activities and meaningful occupation were seen as being paramount in meeting the challenging needs of the people accommodated. Activities were therefore personalised to people’s interests.

Complaints were responded to and the procedure was well publicised.

Wishes and preferences for end of life care needs were assessed and plans put in place to meet these. Staff were trained in end of life care and one of the senior staff had delegated role as a champion.

The management team provided leadership and promoted a positive open culture.

There were auditing and monitoring systems being followed seeking overall improvement.

People were positive about their experience of living at the home. No one we spoke with had any complaints or concerns about how the home was run and managed.

People told us that they had good relationships with the staff, who they described as, "Good and caring". They told us that the home was kept clean and warm. People said there were activities to keep them occupied.

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

The provider had suitable quality assurance procedures in place to manage the health and welfare of people living in the home. People were able to comment on the service provided.