There were 17 people living in the home at the time of our visit. The inspection was conducted by one inspector. We set out to answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?Our report is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.
People were assessed for any risks associated with the support they received and the environment in which they lived. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. People's care plans and support reflected a balance between their safety and choice.
The service had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff were trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.
The environment, equipment and facilities were well maintained, checked and audited regularly; therefore people were protected from risk associated with this aspect of the care.
Is the service effective?
People's needs were assessed before they moved into the service. This helped to give a comprehensive picture of the person and make sure they received the right care and support to meet their needs.
Support for people was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. The care plans gave staff clear and current guidance about how to support each person with their personal, social, mental health and health care needs. Specialist support had been identified in care plans and provided where required.
People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Care plans were reviewed regularly and reflected people's current needs.
Staff were appropriately qualified and trained to support people with their individual needs, wishes and preferences.
Is the service caring?
People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People were supported by kind and attentive staff. Staff were clear about their responsibilities and showed a good knowledge and understanding of how to meet people's needs. People told us that staff were kind and always available if they needed help with any problems.
People who used the service, their relatives and other professionals were involved with their support.
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs were recorded and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes. We saw that people's rooms were highly personalised with their own belongings and according to their interests.
Is the service responsive?
Staff supported people to take part in social and recreational activities of their choice. People completed a range of activities both in and outside of the service regularly. People went out independently or with staff support where necessary. The service had its own vehicle, which helped to keep people involved with the local community.
Staff supported people to keep appointments or contacts with health and social care professionals to make sure their needs were met. People experienced support, which improved their skills towards living independently.
Regular meetings were held and satisfaction surveys completed, from which staff listened to people and took action about their views.
We saw that people were relaxed and able to easily communicate their wishes to staff, who acted upon these. People we spoke with were happy with the service provided.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure that people received their care in a joined up way.
The service had a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified issues were addressed promptly. The structure within the service for decision making and accountability made sure that people's care and support needs were met consistently.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.
The manager had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others.
People had their needs met, as the service was managed by an appropriate person with the necessary qualifications, skills and experience.