Archived: 3 Tensing Close

During our visit we spoke with two of the three people who lived at the home and two relatives. We also spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager and two members of staff.

The inspection was carried out by a single inspector. We used this inspection to answer our five key 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 the staff told us.

Is the service safe?

None of the people we spoke with had any concerns about the support they received. People told us they felt safe at the home.

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

We saw care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. All of the care plans we looked at had risk assessments in place to help minimise any risk that had been identified.

The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Is the service effective?

Each person had a plan of care and support. We saw that support plans explained what the person could do for themselves and what support they needed from staff. Staff told us the care and support plans gave them the information they needed to provide the level of support people required.

We observed staff supporting people and saw positive interactions between staff and people who used the service. Care staff we spoke with were aware of people's needs and how people wanted care to be delivered. We saw staff offered advice and support and people were enabled to make their own choices and decisions.

Is the service caring?

People told us they were very happy with the way the staff interacted with them and said they were treated well be staff.

We observed staff speaking to people appropriately and they used people's preferred form of address; We saw people and staff got on well together.

Is the service responsive?

We saw people had regular reviews of the care and support they received. People were able to participate in a range of activities both in the home and in the local community. Staff told us that they encouraged and supported people to participate in activities to promote and maintain their well-being.

People who used the service, their relatives and staff were asked for their views about how the home was meeting people's needs and any concerns or ways to improve the service were acted on.

Is the service well led?

3 Tensing Close had a policy and procedure for quality assurance. The area manager carried out quality audits every six months and produced a report of their findings.

The manager told us they carried out a range of weekly and monthly audits to ensure that the home was maintaining a good standard of care and support. The provider operated other homes in the local area and mangers from other services conducted visits to 3 Tensing Close to monitor the quality of service provision. Following the visit a report was produced and a copy of the reports were kept on file at the home.

A relative we spoke with told us that they had regular contact with the home and said that they could speak to the manager or staff at any time. They told us they were kept informed about any issues which affected their relatives.

Staff meetings took place every four to six weeks and minutes of these meetings were kept. The home also had regular meetings with people who used the service to obtain their views on how the home was performing.

We spoke with all three of the people who lived at Tensing Close and we also spoke with three staff including the registered manager. We saw staff treated people in a sensitive, respectful and professional manner and involved individuals in the running of the home.

We looked around the home which was clean, comfortably furnished and free from unpleasant odours. All the bedrooms were single occupancy with ensuite showers and toilets which had been adapted to individual needs. We saw that bedrooms were personalised with books, TV's and pictures.

We observed that staff understood people's needs and supported them in a kind, friendly and respectful manner. People we spoke with said they liked living at the home, and felt safe. They said they liked all the staff.

People's care plans provided detailed information about their needs and preferences and how they liked to be cared for. Staff showed a good understanding of how best to care for people, and people's health and welfare was assessed and looked after appropriately. One person said they liked living here because it was quiet and they explained how their health needs were supported.

We observed that people behaved in a relaxed way within the home and interacted well with staff. People were supported to access a range of activities outside the home, according to their interests. We found that staff were trained for their roles and received regular supervisions.

Systems were in place for monitoring the quality of the service, which included asking people for their feedback. We saw that action was taken to make improvements where these were identified.