We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer questions we always ask; is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led?This is a summary of what we found
Is the service safe?
People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they cared for. Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents, incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found that before people received any care or treatment they were not asked for their consent in writing. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider did not act in accordance with legal requirements.
People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.
Staff knew about risk management plans and showed us examples where they had followed them. People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.
The provider had safe and effective staffing rotas in place. Where staff had been subject to disciplinary action, appropriate procedures had been followed. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe working practice was identified and people were protected.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them. Specialist dietary, personal care and psychological needs had been identified in care plans where required. People in the main told us that they had been involved in writing them and that they reflected their current needs.
People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration and people were very complimentary about the food and beverages served.
Is the service caring?
People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that support workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people.
One person we spoke with told us, 'The staff are very good here and do as much as they can for us. They are kind and hardworking and do their best to meet my needs."
People who used the service and their relatives completed a yearly satisfaction survey. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People knew how to raise a concern or complain if they were unhappy.
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a 'joined up' way.
People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. The home had its own adapted mini-bus, which helped to keep people involved with their local community.
Is the service well-led?
The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. We were therefore assured that the provider had taken steps to continually improve the service.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.