19 August 2014
During a routine inspection
The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
We considered our inspection findings to answer 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?
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS), which apply to care homes. The registered manager was aware of a Supreme Court judgement in March 2014 about DOLS. They informed us that they had not yet applied for DOLS authorisations for people living in the home who lacked the mental capacity to consent to live there but needed to do so for their own safety. They said that they would be making these applications in the near future. This showed that the registered manager was taking action to ensure that the home met legal requirements relating to DOLS.
People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. We saw that medicines were stored securely and that there were suitable arrangements for any controlled drugs, or medicines that needed cold storage. We watched some people being given their medicines at lunchtime and we saw that they were given in a safe and caring way.
People were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment. There was enough equipment to promote the independence and comfort of people using the service.
There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to care for people safely.
Is the service effective?
People spoke positively about the care they or the person they were visiting received. For example, one person said, 'Quite happy with the way I am looked after' and commented that staff hoisted them well.
Is the service caring?
Staff respected people's dignity. All the people we saw looked clean and comfortable. We observed that staff were supportive and respectful towards them. For example, during the day we saw two people who appeared distressed. Staff spent time listening to them and reassuring them.
Is the service responsive?
Care plans reflected people's assessed needs and contained clear instructions for staff so that people received the help and support they needed. One person commented, 'If I need anything, they will arrange it.' The care staff we spoke with told us they knew about people's needs through their care plans and through shift handovers.
Staff ensured people's health care needs were met. Records showed the home had contacted people's GPs when they had concerns about their health and that healthcare professionals had seen people. For example, one person's care records contained details of a consultation earlier in the year with a tissue viability nurse.
Is the service well-led?
The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive, and to identify, assess and manage risks to people's health, safety and welfare. People told us that they were generally able to raise any concerns about their care and treatment with the manager. Staff told us they thought the home was well led and that their managers were always available when needed.