On the day of our unannounced inspection, we found that eleven people were living at this care home. We subsequently spoke to five people who lived there, four members of staff and the manager of the home. We found that some people were not able to give us their views on the service because of their complex needs and health conditions. We visited on a weekday when all eleven people were at home.We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;
' Is the service caring?
' Is the service responsive?
' Is the service safe?
' Is the service effective?
' Is the service well led?
This is a summary of what we found:
Is the service safe?
We found that there were good arrangements for making sure that the home and the people who lived there were safe. Care was provided in an environment that was safe, accessible, clean and adequately maintained. People's health and welfare needs were being met because there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty who had appropriate skills and experience.
We checked people's care plans and found them to be detailed, relevant and up to date. This meant that people were receiving safe and appropriate care.
We spoke to several people who lived at the home. People told us they felt safe at Apna House. Comments included, 'Everything is fine thanks, staff are really good and I'm comfortable with my bedroom.'
We saw that the home had appropriate safeguarding procedures in place. These were detailed and fit for purpose. We checked staff training records and saw that staff had received recent training in safeguarding vulnerable adults. We spoke to staff and they demonstrated that they understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported and knew what action to take should it be necessary to do so.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) which applies to care homes. We found that one person living at the home was subject to a restriction by this legislation. We spoke to the manager and staff about the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) and found that they understood their responsibilities in relation to the law.
We concluded that people were safe at Apna House and were protected from harm and inappropriate care.
Is the service effective?
People's needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans. We saw that people had regular access to a range of health and social care professionals which included general practitioners, dentists, chiropodists and opticians.
We found that most of the care staff had worked at this care home for many years and knew the people they supported very well. Care staff told us that they were well trained, competent and able to meet the needs of the people who used the service.
Training records showed that staff had received appropriate training in a number of relevant topics, including: health and safety, food hygiene, dealing with diabetes, epilepsy awareness, safeguarding vulnerable adults and nutrition.
People told us that they were happy with the care they received and the care staff who supported them.
We concluded that care staff had the appropriate skills and knowledge to ensure that people received safe, effective and appropriate care and support.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. It was apparent to us during our observations and time spent talking to people, that staff were attentive, patient and caring with the people they were supporting. Staff treated people with respect and dignity. People commented, 'No complaints, the staff are very good' and 'I can't really fault the staff, they are very helpful.'
We spoke to relatives of people who lived at the home. They were complimentary about the standards of care being delivered and the competence of staff delivering care and support. Comments included, 'My relative is happy there, I have regular contact and I think overall care is good' and 'The home seems very good, we have no complaints.'
Is the service responsive?
There were good arrangements for making sure that people could express their views about the service. We saw records including a customer satisfaction survey (questionnaires) which showed that people had been consulted about their preferences in terms of activities, meals, the home environment and improving the service. This meant that people were supported in promoting their independence and had regular opportunities to discuss and influence matters that were important to them.
We found that care staff had regular meetings with the manager of the home where they were able to discuss their training and development needs, welfare and any concerns they might have about the people they were caring for.
We found that Apna House had a comprehensive complaints policy. We noted that a version of this policy had been prepared in another relevant language as well as in English. An 'easy to read' version of the policy had also been made available for people who lived at the home and their relatives. This meant that the provider had published a complaints policy in a format that met people's needs.
We concluded that people who live at Apna House were involved in their care and listened to in a way that responded to their needs and concerns.
Is the service well-led?
A check of records showed that the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.
We found that the home was visited regularly by the provider's quality assurance team. Their reports showed that they looked at health and safety matters, maintenance issues, staffing (including training) and people's well-being as part of their visit to the home. We saw that their reports were shared with the manager who acted upon the comments and recommendations made.
We concluded that there was effective leadership at Apna House and that people received care and support in a safe environment and were treated with respect, care and consideration.