Our inspection team was made up of an inspector who answered our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
During our visit we saw that people were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust, staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported and had received training. Details of specific areas or circumstances under which people may be particularly vulnerable were written down in the care plans we saw.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduces the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications were to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.
The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly, therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.
The staff rotas took people's care needs into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped to ensure that people's needs were always met.
No staff had been subject to disciplinary action. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.
Is the service effective?
There was an advocacy service available if people needed it, this meant that when required people could access additional support.
The 2 case files we sampled contained health and care needs assessments, although a record of the assessment of a person who had moved in during the week of our inspection visit was not provided. There was comprehensive information provided by the previous placement that was on file. A sample of 2 care plans we looked at had not been recently updated and there was no written evidence that the home's care reviews were taking place. There were specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs identified in care plans as required. One person said that they had been involved in writing their care plan and it met their current needs. Some of the care plans had been signed by people using the service. People told us "I'm doing gardening", "I'm helping with the meal we're having chicken pie" and "I've been working and shopping today".
The layout of the service enabled people to move around freely and safely and the premises met the needs of people with physical impairments.
Visitors confirmed that they were able to see people in private and that visiting times were flexible.
We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to assessing people's needs and keeping their care plans up to date.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, 'I like it here and the staff' and "Everyone is very nice".
People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed and there were regular house meetings where people could put forward their views, suggestions and opinions.
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had not always been updated in their care plans, although activities were recorded in their daily note books. Because of this care and support could not always be provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. During our visit people were coming from and going to a number of different activities either individually or as a group. The home had access to transport, which helped to keep people involved with their local community.
People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. People said that they had never needed to make a complaint as any problems were generally sorted out on the spot or during house meetings . We looked at how complaints were investigated and this was satisfactory. People could therefore be assured that complaints were investigated and action was taken as necessary.
Is the service well-led?
There was a new management structure in place that was pro-active, listened to people's needs and opinions and acted upon them. They were introducing a number of new initiatives and had employed consultants to introduce practice improvements in areas they felt required it. The service worked well with other agencies and services as reflected in the information provided by the placement that the person who had just moved in, came from.
The registered manager was away from work and suitable covering interim measures were in place. Appropriate notifications to the Care Quality Commission had been made.