At our inspection we gathered evidence that helped answer our five questions.Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with three people who used the using the service, a relative of one of those people and relatives of two other people. We spoke with four staff including the registered manager. We looked at four people's care records and staff records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People who used the service were safe from avoidable harm and abuse because the provider had effective safeguarding procedures. Staff had received training about safeguarding of vulnerable people and knew how to recognise and report signs of abuse.
Senior staff had a good understanding and other staff an awareness of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This is legislation that protects vulnerable people who are or may become deprived of their liberty through the use of restraint, restriction of movement and control. This showed that staff understood how people's safety was respected and their best interests taken into account. The legislation had been correctly applied at the home for a small number of people who used the service.
People and relatives we spoke with told us the service was safe. They told us they were confident they could raise any concerns if a situation arose where they felt they needed to.
People's care plans included risk assessments associated with people's care and support. This meant that the provider had plans in place to protect people from injury when they received care and support.
The provider had effective recruitment procedures that ensured, as far as possible, that only people who were suited to work with vulnerable people worked at Bosworth Court.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them or their relatives. Care plans included details of people's needs and information about how people were supported with their needs. Care plans and records we looked at that showed that people had received the support they required.
Relatives were able to visit the home at times they wanted.
People were supported to maintain good health. Staff had been alert to changes in people's health and had accessed relevant health services when people needed them. The provider had arranged for a GP to visit the home every Monday to attend to people's health needs.
Is the service caring?
People told us they were well looked after. They told us staff were kind and caring. Our observations of how staff cared for and supported people confirmed what people had told us. Staff referred to people by their preferred name when they spoke with
them. We saw that staff engaged with people in a caring and compassionate manner. When staff supported people they first sought their consent then explained what they were going to do.
People's preferences, interests and diverse needs were respected. People were able to spend their time how they wanted. An activities coordinator provided people with meaningful and stimulating activities.
People who used the service and their relatives had opportunities to be involved in discussions and decisions about their care and support. People were encouraged to give their views about their care and support and their views were respected.
People's privacy and dignity were respected and promoted. People were able to go to their rooms when they wanted to. People who shared a room with another person had wanted to. Rooms that were shared had a privacy curtain that was used to divide a room when people received individual care and support.
Is the service responsive?
People were supported to be involved, as much as they were able, in the assessment of their needs and their care and support. People's care plans were person centred. People's care plans had been regularly reviewed.
People who used the service and their relatives were encouraged to share their views about the service. People's views had been acted upon. Concerns and complaints had been investigated and used as an opportunity for learning and improvement.
Is the service well-led?
The service had a system for monitoring the quality of service. This included audits of the quality of care, documentation and records and observations of care worker's practice. Audits had identified areas that required improvement, and action plans had been implemented. Staff meetings took place at regular intervals. We saw from records of those meetings that the manager had shared information about the outcome of monitoring activity.
The service had procedures for reporting of accidents and injuries. We saw that reports were reviewed and analysed and that action had been taken to reduce the risk of the same type of accident occurring again.
The provider regularly sought the views of people who used the service and their relatives. Their views had been acted on. The provider had also sought the views of staff. At the time of our inspection there had been a two month delay in the analysis of staff feedback.