We considered the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We spoke with people who used the service, looked at care records of four people in detail. We also spoke with three staff and the registered manager.This is a summary of what we found:
Is the service safe?
When we arrived at the service the staff member asked to see our identification and asked us to sign in the visitor's book. This meant that appropriate actions were taken to ensure that people who used the service were protected from others who did not have the right to access the home.
People told us that they felt safe and did not have any concerns. The staff we spoke with adequately explained the procedure they would follow if they suspected any form of abuse. The provider had safeguarding and whistle-blowing policies in place. These clearly explained the manger's and staff's responsibility in relation to safeguarding people and poor practice.
Before people went to live in Callum House, the manager undertook a detailed assessment with them that ensured they would be safe in the environment. The assessment also considered whether the provider's staffing arrangement was adequate enough to meet their needs. Care and support was planned and delivered in a way that intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. This included effective risk assessments for people who left the home to pursue their own activities.
The manager and senior support worker had been trained and understood their obligation to apply the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This is a legal framework designed to protect the best interests of people who are unable to make their own decisions. No person living in Callum House had been assessed as needing this safeguard in place.
We saw that staff had been provided with training in safeguarding vulnerable adults, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant that staff had been provided with the information they needed to ensure that people were safeguarded.
Care had been taken to make sure people were kept safe by only employing people who had the necessary pre-employment checks. This included a clear Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check.
On the day of our inspection there were enough appropriately skilled and experienced staff on duty, and we saw that it was sufficient to meet people's needs. Care staff were seen to be available when help was needed.
Systems were in place to ensure the manager and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents. We saw evidence that root cause analysis was undertaken on each event and actions put in place to help avoid a repeat occurrence. This reduced the risks to people.
There were effective procedures in place to manage and mitigate foreseeable emergencies. These included loss of premises due to fire or flood. We saw evidence that the provider's audit schedule was effective. This included regular auditing of the suitability and safety of the premises.
Is the service effective?
The people we spoke with told us that the care and support they received reflected their needs. People said that they could choose what they did during the day and that many of the activities were aimed at increasing their independence. We noted that there were five units as well as individual rooms at Callum House. The units were designed for people to stay in prior to moving into the community. There was clear evidence that the care and support given to people effectively achieved this. One person we spoke with told us that they had participated in workshops relating to food hygiene, health and safety and medicines management. They said that this helped them to prepare for their future.
People's needs were reviewed on a regular basis to determine if there were any changes in the way they needed to be cared for and supported. One of the support staff we spoke with said, 'The care plans are tailored to people's needs and change as people's needs change'. The people we spoke with told us that they were involved in the process. They said that staff worked with them to increase their independence, and helped them to achieve their goals. This meant that care planning was effective as it took into account the changes in people's needs.
Is service caring?
We spoke with two people who used the service. Both of them told us that they were very happy living in Callum House. One person said, 'It's like living in a family here. The staff are kind and polite. I am very lucky to be living here'. Another person said, 'It's fantastic here. I had the opportunity to come here two years ago but didn't. I should have done. It's the best thing I have ever done. I get looked after really well'.
We saw that support staff interacted with people living in Callum House in a caring, respectful and professional manner. It was clear when observing the staff that people were treated with respect and encouraged to be involved in decisions about their care.
People's care and support plans were person centred and had been written with the person involved. The plans clearly documented how people's needs should be met and were reviewed and updated on a regular basis. People's daily records showed staff had effectively responded to people's individual needs in a caring and compassionate manner.
People who lived in Callum House were regularly asked their views about their care and support. We noted that all of their responses were positive. One person had written, 'I am pleased with my room. The home looks lovely. (Member of staff) helps me tidy my room on a Thursday. We do a good job'.
It was evident that the staff knew the needs of the people they were caring for. Their interaction with people was positive. We observed staff sitting in the lounge speaking with people. There was a lot of laughter and people were seen to be enjoying the conversations that took place.
Is the service responsive?
We saw evidence that the care and support given to people responded to their individual needs. People were provided with opportunities to participate in activities that interested them. This included going to the gym, going shopping and gardening.
The people we spoke with told us that they were aiming to be able to live an independent life. We noted that people attended workshops relating to food hygiene, health and safety and medicines management. They said that this helped them to prepare for their future. This meant that the service was responding to the needs of people to help them have the necessary skills to be independent.
There was information around the home that explained how to make a complaint. Although there had not been any written complaints for four years, the manager told us that verbal complaints were appropriately logged and investigated as necessary. The people we spoke with who used the service knew how to raise a complaint but told us that they had nothing to complain about.
Is the service well-led?
The service had a registered manager responsible for the day to day management of it. People who used the service told us that the management was very good, and 'always about' to talk with. It was evident throughout our inspection that the manager was knowledgeable about each person living in the home. We observed positive interaction between the manager and the staff, and between the manager and people who used the service.
Staff were clear about their responsibilities and duty of care and were able to raise their views and concerns. They told us that they felt well supported. There was an effective on-call system in place. This ensured that staff could contact someone more senior, at all times, if they had any concerns.
The service had quality assurance systems in place and records seen by us showed that any identified shortfalls had been addressed promptly.