25 June 2014
During a routine inspection
Is the service safe?
We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect. One visitor told us they felt their relative with a dementia was safe at the home and said, 'I'm pleased with the way they treat her, staff are always very nice and caring. They're also chatty and cheerful.' Safeguarding procedures are robust and members of staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. Relevant staff had received training about the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
Recruitment procedures were thorough and made sure that all the required information was obtained before any new employees started working at the home. These procedures helped to protect people from the recruitment of unsuitable staff.
We saw that the skirting boards in almost all areas of the home were dusty and dirty. The provider had not taken any action to improve the environment in any areas of the home since the last inspection. The decorations looked tired and wallpaper was peeling off the walls in one of the lounges.
We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to cleanliness and the premises.
Is the service effective?
People's health and social care needs were assessed with them or their relatives and they were involved in writing their care plans. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. Care plans were reviewed regularly and amended to reflect people's changing needs.
Discussion with care workers and examination of records confirmed that induction training for new employees and a rolling programme of training was in place so that all members of staff were kept up to date with current practice.
Is the service caring?
We saw that members of staff were attentive to people's needs and spoke to people in a courteous and friendly manner. People who used the service told us they liked living at the home and received the care and support they needed. One person said, 'It's a great place to live.' The relative of one person said, 'The care is second to none, they're looked after very well.'
People's personal preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded in their individual care plans.
People who used the service and their representatives were given the opportunity to complete satisfaction questionnaires annually in September. We saw that comments written on the questionnaires from September 2013 were mainly positive.
Is the service responsive?
Leisure activities were organised at the home. One care worker explained that people played games such as draughts or cards, watched television, listened to music and were taken out for a walk. A local vicar visited the home regularly and offered Holy Communion to people who wished to practice their faith in that way.
People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. One person told us they would tell a member of staff and said, 'I've no complaints at all.'
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.
There were systems in place for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided. We saw that audits completed regularly by the manager covered most aspects of the service provided. However, these audits had not identified the shortfalls we found during this inspection.
Discussion with members of staff confirmed that they had received appropriate training and understood their roles and responsibilities. This helped to ensure that people who used the service received the care and support they needed.