8 April 2014
During a routine inspection
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with people using the service, the staff supporting them and looking at records.
If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People told us they felt safe and had no concerns about their rights and choices being upheld. We saw and people told us they could come and go if they pleased and no restrictions were placed upon them at the home.
Care staff knew about risk management plans and gave us examples of how they followed them. People were not put at unnecessary risk and had choice and control over decisions about their care and lives.
The home worked well with other providers of services to ensure people's health and welfare. However, documentation was disorganised and difficult to find which could put people at risk if they needed to be taken to hospital in an emergency.
Staff were trained to ensure they had the skills to carry out the care that people needed. They were regularly supervised by their manager.
Robust systems were not in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents, incidents and complaints. This increases the risk to people and fails to ensure that lessons are learned from mistakes. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to learning from incidents and events that affect people's safety.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist skin care needs had been identified where required.
People told us their care plans were up to date and reflected their current needs.
People told us they were able to see their visitors privately and that visiting times were flexible to meet people's wishes.
Is the service caring?
We spoke with six people who used the service and asked them for their views about care staff. Feedback from people was positive, for example; 'I think the staff are very good, they have a laugh and a joke with you and make you very comfortable', 'They encourage you to keep your independence but always ask us what we want and need'.
When speaking with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported.
People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
We found that the provider asked people for their views about the service and responded to suggestions. People told us of the variety of activities that were always on offer which met their individual preferences and that together with their individual assessment and care plans all their needs were met.
The provider ensured that the health care needs of people were planned for and met. Relationships between the home and external healthcare providers were ongoing and ensured that all care needs were met in a timely manner.
Is the service well led?
Some of the records in the home were not organised in a way which made them readily available for care staff.
Systems were in place to effectively monitor the quality of the service provided but not in place to monitor risk. Care staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities, however the registered manager was not always included in decisions made by the provider about changes to the service or people admitted to the home. This meant that people were put at risk of their care needs not being met.
We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to learning from incidents and events that affect people's safety.