Archived: Shelton Lock Care Home

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. This is a summary of what we found.

The provider had made arrangements for the threshold strip to be fit for purpose, so people who used the service could access the garden area safely. Staff spoken with told us that it was much safer for people who used wheelchairs to go in and out of the garden.

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in an environment that was well maintained with equipment that was serviced regularly. Access to the grounds for people using electric wheelchairs was unsafe. A compliance action has been set in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.

Staff were trained and knew the needs of people using the service and how to meet those needs safely and as the person wanted. People's care needs were assessed and risks were identified Staff understood the needs of people they provided support to.

People's nutritional needs were assessed and professional advice and support was obtained to ensure that people's needs were met in the most suitable way.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff have been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one.

People received their medication when they needed it and records were well maintained. Staff received the training they needed to administer medication safely.

Records indicated that audits to monitor the quality and safety of the service took place regularly.

Is the service effective?

People told us they were happy with the care that they received and that their needs were met by staff. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they understood the needs of people using the service. One person told us. "They help me when I need help, they ask me what they can do to help and they are always there when you need them.'

Is the service caring?

People using the service were supported by kind and attentive staff. We observed staff showing patience and taking time to talk to people when they provided support. People told us they could choose how they spent their day. We observed people being able to eat their meals when they wanted to and we were told by people using the service they could eat in their room if they wanted to.

Is the service responsive?

People had their needs assessed before moving to the service. Support plans showed how people wanted to receive their support. People spoken with confirmed they received their care as they preferred it.

Is the service well-led?

Staff spoken with understood the standard of care expected of them by the provider, the manager spent time speaking to people who used the service on a daily basis to ensure any concerns were dealt with promptly. Staff told us they were clear about their role and responsibility.

People we spoke with told us they were generally happy with the service they received.

We saw that people's needs were assessed, and care plans were in place. This meant they received support in a way they prefer.

People using the service confirmed they felt safe and said if they had any concerns they would speak to staff.

One visitor told us 'I have no concerns about my relatives safety they are safe here'. They told us that if they had any concerns they would raise them with the manager.

We found the provider had made improvements to the service following our last inspection visit in January 2013. At this inspection we saw evidence which confirmed staff had received further training and a training plan had been put in place.

Safeguarding incidents were now being reported to the relevant authorities.

The provider was taking action to ensure that there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet the needs of the people at the service.

At this inspection we found that the provider did not have effective systems in place to ensure that people received their medication safely.

People told us that they felt safe living at the service, and were able to report any concerns they may have to staff or the manager.

Although people felt safe, we found that the service had not reported safeguarding incident to the relevant authorities.

People we spoke with told us they got on well with the staff team and spoke positively about the staff. Comments included 'most of the staff are friendly and very good at their job,' 'staff are excellent,' 'there are more staff on duty now' and 'they (staff) are very nice.' They also commented that sometimes they have to wait for assistance as staff are busy.

A Visitor's comments about the staff included 'staff are very friendly, they cannot do enough to help you.'

Not all areas of staff training were in place or up to date. This did not ensure people's health and welfare needs were met by a competent staff team.

We saw that people's needs were assessed, and care plans were in place. This meant they received support in a way they preferred and met their needs.

Risk assessments had not been updated for one person. Two areas of significant concern had been identified involving a person who had been at the service for a short period of time. This showed that measures were not in place to minimise identified risks and keep people safe.