4 November 2014
During a routine inspection
We inspected this service on 4 November 2014. The inspection was unannounced. At our previous inspection in June 2013, the service was meeting the legal requirements.
The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 29 people who may have a diagnosis of dementia. At the time of our inspection 15 people lived at the home. The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
We found the provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place to minimise risks to people’s safety. The manager assessed risks to people’s health and welfare and wrote care plans that minimised the identified risks. Staff understood people’s needs and abilities because they read the care plans and worked alongside experienced staff.
Staffing levels were decided according to people’s needs and abilities. This ensured there were enough staff to care for and support people with their physical and social needs. The manager made all the appropriate checks on staff’s suitability to deliver personal care during the recruitment process.
The manager checked that the premises were well maintained and equipment was regularly serviced to minimise risks to people’s safety.
The medicines administration policy and procedures were known to and understood by staff. Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely because staff acted in accordance with the policy and procedures.
The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). No one was under a DoLS at the time of our inspection. For people who were assessed as not having capacity, records showed that their families and other health professionals were involved in discussions about who should make decisions in their relation’s best interests.
All the people we spoke with told us they were happy at the home. They told us the staff were kind and helped them to maintain their interests and involvement in the local community. We saw staff understood people who were not able to communicate verbally and supported them with kindness and compassion.
People’s care was planned to meet their individual needs, abilities and preferences. Care plans were regularly reviewed and staff asked other health professionals for advice and support when people’s health needs changed.
The provider’s quality monitoring system included regular checks of people’s care plans, medicines administration and the quality of care that people received. Accidents, incidents and falls were investigated and actions taken to minimise the risks of a re-occurrence.
People who lived at the home and relatives had confidence in the manager and the staff. They told us the quality of care was good and their suggestions, comments and complaints were listened to and responded to appropriately.