During our inspection we looked at the way people were cared for, the safeguarding arrangements in place, staff recruitment, the way staff were supported, the number of staff on duty and quality monitoring systems. We spoke individually with three people living at the home, five relatives, three members of the care staff team, the registered manager, and deputy manager. We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.This helped to answer our five questions: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found.
Is the service safe?
From our observations people appeared relaxed and secure. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.
We saw that people were treated with respect and dignity by the staff team and their rights protected. The deputy manager set the staff rotas. The assessed needs of people were taken into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped to ensure that people's needs were always met.
Systems were in place to make sure that any lessons were learned from events such as accidents, incidents, complaints or concerns. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to improve.
The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 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 people were safeguarded as required.
Recruitment practices were in the main safe and thorough. This made sure that only appropriate people that had been properly vetted were appointed.
It the service effective?
There was an advocacy service available if people needed it. This meant that when required, people living at the home or their relatives could access additional support. The people we spoke with and the relatives we spoke with told us that they were pleased with the level of care that was being delivered in the home.
From our observations and through speaking with staff it was clear that there was a good understanding of each person's assessed needs and that personal preferences were accommodated. One person told us, 'It is champion living here, it is very good'. A relative said, 'The staff show a lot of care, patience and dignity. They are always trying to look at each person as an individual rather than looking at everybody together. I have recommended here to a lot of people'.
People's health and care needs had been assessed and the individual or their family were aware of the care being delivered. However not everyone had seen or had been given opportunity to agree to the content of the initial care plan. Although no concerns at all were expressed about the level or type of care being provided, there was never the less potential for care to be delivered in a way that did not meet the expectations of the individual.
Visitors confirmed that they were able to see people in private and that visiting times were flexible. The relatives we spoke with also said that they had good communication with the staff team and were always informed of any changes or concerns.
Is the service responsive?
People living at the home and/or their relatives knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy about anything. However nobody we spoke with expressed any concerns. One person told us, 'I come here most days at different times of the day. I have never witnessed anything to cause concern. Staff always respond very positively in a calm, relaxed and no pressure way'.
The registered manager and deputy manager worked alongside staff on a daily basis. This meant that the care and support provided by the staff team was continually monitored so that immediate action could be taken if there was any concern.
People enjoyed a range of activities suited to their needs and abilities both in and outside the home. The building and grounds were arranged so that people could move about freely whilst still maintaining a safe environment. One relative told us, 'I like the way I can access the building and take ***** out into the garden. By giving us the key pad code ***** is not aware that there is key pad in place.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience, humour and gave encouragement when supporting people. A relative said, 'The staff excel, they are very kind and very, very good'. Another relative told us, 'All the staff have been brilliant, they do everything well. **** is very well cared for'.
People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's preferences. This helped to make sure that people were provided with an individualised service that met their specific requirements.
Relatives and where appropriate people living at the home, had been provided with satisfaction surveys twice a year. We viewed the outcome of the most recent survey. Outcomes were positive. Action would be taken to address any concerns expressed.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with a range of health professionals to make sure that people received their care in a joined up way. All health care related visits had been recorded including the reason for the visit and the outcome. This provided a clear audit trail.
Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance systems that were in place. This helped to ensure that the quality of the service was continually improving. Relatives spoken with and one person living at the home told us that they felt listened to and that staff were attentive to their wants and wishes. This helped to ensure that people received a service that met their requirements.
Staff told us that they were clear about their role and responsibility and that they felt well supported by the management team. Staff confirmed that communication within the staff team was positive and that good supervision arrangements were in place. We were also told that staff team worked well together for the benefit of the people living at the home.
A range of routine audits were in place including care plans, risk assessments and fire safety. This helped to ensure that a consistent service was maintained that helped to protect people and keep them safe.