A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to gather evidence to answer five questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led? During this inspection we spoke with two people who used the service, two representatives and three relatives of people who used the service. We also spoke with the Registered Provider, the general manager, three care staff and one domestic staff.
The Registered Manager has left the home but their name appears on the report. Their name will appear on the CQC register until their application for cancellation has been submitted and approved. The home has a new manager who is currently applying to the CQC to be the Registered Manager of the home. In this report, this manager is referred to as the 'general manager'.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People who used the service told us that they felt safe in the home. People said that they felt comfortable in the home and that members of staff treated them with respect and dignity.
Safeguarding procedures were comprehensive. We saw evidence that all staff had received safeguarding training in April 2014.
When we discussed safeguarding with staff, they were aware of the signs of abuse and the action to take when responding to allegations or incidents of abuse. However, not all staff we spoke with were aware that they could report allegations to the local authority, police and the Care Quality Commission.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have been submitted, appropriate policies and procedures were in place.
We saw evidence that necessary employment checks had been carried out to ensure that people were cared for by suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.
There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people's needs and staff confirmed this. We noted that care staff were able to complete their tasks and did not appear rushed.
The service had systems in place to identify assess and manage risks related to health welfare and safety of people who used the service.
Is the service effective?
People told us that they were happy with the care they received at the home and felt that their needs had been met. One person who used the service told us "Staff are helpful and kind" and "Staff are respectful and include me". One relative we spoke with said that their relative was "fortunate to be in this home".
We looked at four care files and saw that people's care needs had been assessed and care and treatment were planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Risk assessments had been carried out where necessary. Care plans included information about people's preferred routines and healthcare needs. We saw that care plans included information about people's mental state and cognition. However, we saw no evidence that mental capacity assessments had been carried out and therefore there was a risk that people's best interests were not being served.
Staff told us that they were well supported by their manager and that there was good communication amongst staff. This enabled them to carry out their roles effectively, which in turn had an impact on the quality of care people received.
Is the service caring?
People who used the service and relatives were positive about the staff at the home. They told us that they had been treated with respect and dignity in the home. One relative told us "Staff are respectful and polite. Staff interact with people". One person who used the service said "Staff are friendly and helpful". During our inspection, we saw that there was good interaction between staff and people who used the service.
People looked well cared for and we saw that the atmosphere was relaxed in the home.
Is the service responsive?
People who used the service and relatives we spoke with told us that if they had any concerns or complaints, they would feel comfortable raising them with staff or the general manager at the home.
We saw that the home had a complaints policy and procedure. Complaints were recorded, however there was no record of whether these had been resolved. The Registered Provider told us that they listened to people and acted on feedback received. We saw evidence that the provider had carried out a survey in April 2014 asking people for their views about the home. They then analysed the information from the survey and took action following people's comments.
People's care and health progress was monitored closely. Written notes about people's health and care were completed by staff. People's care plans and their health needs were regularly reviewed with people who used the service.
Is the service well-led?
The home had quality assurance processes in place to help ensure that people received a good quality service.
People who used the service told us that they felt listened to by members of staff and the general manager.
Resident/relative's meetings were held quarterly which enabled people to discuss issues regarding the running of the home. This encouraged people to raise queries and concerns with management and members of staff.
Staff told us that staff meetings took place quarterly and the general manager confirmed that informal meetings amongst staff were held every other day and we saw evidence to confirm this. The aim of these meetings was to enable staff to raise queries and concerns with their team and share information. All staff we spoke with told us that they felt able to consult the general manager if they had concerns or queries and said that they felt supported.
Management in the home completed regular audits such as health and safety and premises risk audits.