Archived: 30 Church Road

Below is a summary of what we found. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service because the people had complex needs which meant they were not always able to tell us their experiences. During our inspection we spoke with one person using the service, relatives of two people using the service and four members of staff. We observed interactions between staff and people using the service.

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

Is the service safe?

Risks to people's safety and welfare were identified and plans had been put in place to manage them.

Recruitment practice was robust, two references, a full employment history and a Disclosure and Barring (DBS) check were carried out before staff were employed.

There were arrangements in place for the safe administration and storage of medicines.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) which applies to care homes. We found there were proper policies and procedures in place and relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. DOLS arrangements were in place and appropriate applications had been made.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed. Relatives told us and we observed that people received the care they needed.

Where people lacked capacity to make decisions about their care, mental capacity assessments were carried out and documented. We found evidence that decisions in people's best interests had been documented. This meant that the service complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Is the service caring?

People using the service were able to communicate in a limited way. We observed staff interacting with people using the service in specific ways documented in their support plans. We spoke with two relatives who were positive about the service. One relative told us 'I'm pleased how (my relative) is being cared for. There's no doubt about it, they really do care for (my relative).' Another relative said 'I'm so pleased with everything, I can't find fault.'

The service had systems in place to identify and respond to feedback from people using the service. The service also worked with people to incorporate positive risk taking into care planning in order to enhance the life of people using the service.

People's beliefs and preferences had been identified using various techniques and these were respected by staff.

Is the service responsive?

The provider had responded to people's individual needs to develop care plans which met their specific needs. These were reviewed every two months to ensure they reflected people's current needs.

We saw that the provider had acted appropriately in response to an incident, writing an additional support plan and ensuring that staff were aware of the change.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system in place which included regular audits which were carried out internally and by managers from other services operated by the same provider.

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 were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and support safely and to an appropriate standard.

People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on.

Staff supported us to ask people who used the service about their experiences. We spoke with two people, with staff support, who both expressed satisfaction with the support they received at the service.

People were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink. We saw that the home had a planned menu, which provided a choice of meals. The menu had been developed following feedback from people who used the service about their likes and dislikes and also from staff knowledge about people's preferences.

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

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. This enabled people to take part in a range of planned activities.

We found that people were supported and staff spent time assisting people and were aware of people's needs. Staff were friendly, respectful and courteous when speaking with people. The staff were able to tell us about people's individual needs and were knowledgeable about the care and support people they needed.

Healthcare professionals were positive about the care and people were receiving. They told us that the staff were "excellent" and knew people they were supporting very well. The told us that the staff made referrals to them as appropriate.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered according to their individual care plan. Changes in care needs were identified through regular reviews and actions taken. People's privacy and dignity was respected when receiving care. Equipment was in place to support people to maintain their mobility and independence.