On the day of our inspection 25 people were living at the home. We spoke with people who used the service. People told us they were happy with the care they received. One person said, 'It is very good here, you wouldn't get better'. Another person said, 'I'm very happy here and get plenty of visitors'.During the inspection we sampled people's care records and spoke with staff. They helped us to answer the five 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 were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Care plans identified people's needs and were reviewed. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs. People were given choices and supported to make decisions themselves. Risk assessments were in place and control measures identified. This meant that people's needs were met and people were kept safe.
Documented procedures were in place for The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that systems were in place to safeguard people as required.
People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. Only staff that had been trained administered medication.
People received care and support from staff who had the skills experience and knowledge to meet people's needs. People we spoke with told us they felt safe at the home. One person said, 'The staff work as a team, the place is spotless and there is a nice age span of staff'. Another person said, 'I have no concerns, they make a great fuss of me'.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
Is the service effective?
People experienced care, and support that met their needs. People had access to aids that enabled people to maintain their independence with eating and walking. People who wanted to were able to participate in activities such as bingo and singing. A priest visited the home for those who wished to participate in Holy Communion. Records showed people, their relatives and professionals were involved in care reviews. Information sheets were in place in case people were admitted to hospital. This meant that people's needs were met.
People who were able to could move around the home freely and safely.
Regular audits and checks took place. Issues identified were acted on. This meant the service had effective systems in place to identify improvements and continually meet people's needs.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that support workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. We saw people responded positively to staff. One person said, 'Yes the staff are caring, I don't ever feel uncomfortable'. Another person said, 'Staff are very private, they always shut the door when helping with personal care'.
People's preferences, likes, dislikes and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. The cook researched recipes to enable people to have foods they liked. People were involved in their day to day care and were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them. People's diversity and individuality were promoted and respected.
Is the service responsive?
We saw staff that responded quickly to meet people's needs and ensured people's safety was maintained. For example, call bells were responded to quickly. We saw that people were supported to express their views and these were acted on. People had the opportunity to engage in activities within the home.
People were aware of how they could make a complaint. People we spoke with told us they did not have any complaints. We were told that no formal complaints had been received.
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. Staff felt supported in their roles and felt their views were listened too. Staff we spoke with told us it was a good staff team and was like one big family.
The service had a quality assurance system. A quality audit was undertaken monthly. The service had made improvements to the format of care planning documents. This meant the quality of the service was continually improving.