17 October 2017
During a routine inspection
This inspection visit was unannounced and took place on 17 September 2017. At our last inspection visit on December 2015 we asked the provider to make improvements to the medicine auditing process and for the manager to compete their registration with us. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made, however in our effective section we require the provider to make some further improvements. The service was registered to provide accommodation for up to 50 people. People who used the service had physical health needs and/or were living with dementia. At the time of our inspection 46 people were using the service. The home is situated in a small village and is adjoined to a convent with a small working chapel; sisters support the management and running of the home.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
People were supported to make choices, however the assessments did not always reflect the person’s level of understanding in different situations. We saw that staff knew how to keep people safe and raised any concerns if necessary. Risk assessments had been competed to reduce risks or provide guidance. There was enough staff to support people’s needs and this was supplemented by the sisters from the adjoining convent. People received their medicine to support their health conditions.
Staff had received a range of training for their roles and this enabled them to provide care in a supported and enabling way. There was a friendly atmosphere and staff had established relationships with people. People enjoyed a positive meal experience and their nutritional needs had been catered for. When required health care professionals advice had been sought had their guidance followed.
Peoples care plans were individual and recorded preferences in relation to their daily routine and their interests and hobbies. We saw these had been reflected in the stimulation on offer. People’s dignity was respected and this included their choice of faith.
Staff felt supported by the provider and the manager. A range of audits and quality measures had been implemented to consider improvements and ongoing developments to the home. People had an opportunity to comment on the service they received and their comments had been reviewed and considered. Complaints had been acknowledged and responded to. We saw that the previous rating was displayed in the reception of the home as required. The manager understood their responsibility of registration with us and notified us of important events that occurred at the service; this meant we could check appropriate action had been taken.