A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer the five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, relatives and 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.
This is a summary of what we found:
Is the service safe?
Risk assessments for care needs were completed and provided appropriate actions for the identified risk to be reduced. We found that records of care provided to people were kept and indicated guidance in care plans was followed.
Most medicines were stored and administered safely, and clear records were kept to show when medicines were received and given, although temperatures checks were not kept of all storage areas. Staff members received medication training and there was clear guidance in people’s care records to ensure medicines were safely administered. However, records were not clear in relation to one medicine and there was not an accurate record of how many tablets there should be.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care services. While no applications have needed to be submitted, the service did not have policies and procedures in place if this was required. However, relevant staff had an increased level of knowledge to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.
There were enough staff members available and they were usually able to attend to people without hurry. People told us that they received the care they needed when they needed it and a staff member said there were busy periods through the day but the home had enough staff members.
Is the service effective?
People told us that staff members helped them with everything they needed assistance with. They were satisfied with the care they received. Care records reflected people's care needs and preferences and provided staff with guidance to meet their needs.
Health needs were responded to and people had access to health care professionals if they needed this. Care records contained information about people’s preferences and identified the people who were not able to tell staff or give their consent to care or treatment. We observed that staff told people what they were going to do before doing it and waited for permission before carrying out any care.
Is the service caring?
People said that staff members were polite and kind. We observed interactions between people and staff that showed staff members were patient and understanding of people’s individual needs. Staff members knew people's care needs and their personal preferences.
Our observations also showed that staff members were respectful towards people living at the home. People told us that staff were respectful and that their privacy was maintained.
Is the service responsive?
We saw that people's individual physical and mental support, care and treatment needs were assessed and mostly planned for. Their individual choices and preferences regarding their support and care were valued and respected.
People's individual support and care needs were being met. People who used the service said that their health needs were responded to well.
Is the service well led?
People told us about resident meetings and said they could give their view about the running of the home if they wished. The service had not carried out a survey since January 2013, although the manager distributed survey questionnaires to people during our inspection. There were also other systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service provided, which meant that any risks to people were identified and acted upon.
Notifications to tell us about serious injuries and the death of people living at the home had been sent within appropriate timescales.