26 February 2016
During a routine inspection
Our inspection took place on 26 February 2016. At the last inspection in January 2014, the provider was meeting the regulations we looked at.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.
People told us that the service was extremely caring and that staff always went the extra mile in ensuring they received care that was not only kind but compassionate. People and their relatives were tremendously vocal in their praise for the compassionate and empathetic care provided at the service. They told us that people’s needs were considered to be of paramount importance by staff and that each member of staff supported people in a dignified and considerate manner. People felt that staff went above and beyond to ensure that people received the right care for them. Staff had fostered meaningful and trusting relationships with people which proved to be of great benefit to them; people were extremely happy and spent large parts of the day with huge smiles on their faces, laughing and engaging with staff and each other in a really profound and positive manner. People were valued for their contribution towards the service and their involvement was never forgotten, even when they had left.
People were encouraged and empowered to be as independent as possible within the service and made to feel as though they were extremely important by enabling them to take on small, but valuable roles. They were supported by highly committed staff that were exceedingly knowledgeable about how to meet their needs. Staff understood how people preferred to be supported on a daily basis and were skilled in communicating with them and enabling them in order that they could make as many decisions for themselves as possible. People were very strong in their belief about the positive impact that staff had made to their lives and how much they had gained from them. People told us they could rely upon staff to be there for them and provide support, affirmation and a friendly, caring face at all times.
People were treated with dignity and respect by staff who understood how to promote and protect people’s rights and maintain their privacy. People had access to advocacy services when required. Relationships with family members were valued and people were supported by staff to maintain these.
People told us that they felt safe living at the home. Staff were knowledgeable about the procedures to ensure that people were kept safe and protected from harm and abuse. Staff were also aware of whistleblowing procedures and would have no hesitation in reporting any concerns. Risk assessments were in place and were specific to people’s needs; these were aimed at empowering people whilst also maintaining their safety.
There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff employed at the home. The provider’s recruitment process ensured that only staff that had been deemed suitable to work with people at the home were employed following satisfactory recruitment checks had been completed. People received their medicines as prescribed and there were safe systems in place for the administration, disposal, storage and recording of medicines.
Staff received an induction based upon the fundamental standards of care, which determined their competency in a variety of subjects. They also received on-going training and formal supervision, to help them to deliver safe and appropriate care to people.
Staff sought people’s consent before supporting them on a daily basis and ensured they were offered choices. We found people’s rights to make decisions about their care were respected. Where people were assessed as not having the mental capacity to make decisions, they had been supported in the decision making process. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were in progress and had been submitted to the authorising body.
People were provided with a varied menu and had a range of meals and healthy options to choose from. There was a sufficient quantity of food and drinks and snacks made available to people at all times. People were supported to access a range of health care professionals. These included appointments with their GP, hospital services and care from district nurses.
People received person-centred care, based on their likes, dislikes and individual preferences. People’s care was provided by staff in a caring, kind and compassionate way. People’s hobbies and interests had been identified and were supported by staff in a way which involved people to prevent them from becoming socially isolated.
The service had a complaints procedure available for people and their relatives to use and all staff were aware of the procedure. People were supported to raise concerns or complaints. Prompt action was taken to address people’s concerns and prevent any potential for recurrence.
There was an open culture within the service and people were able to talk and raise any issues with the staff. People were provided with several ways that they could comment on the quality of their care. This included regular contact with the provider, registered manager, staff and completing annual quality assurance surveys. The provider sought the views of healthcare professionals as a way of identifying improvement. Where people suggested improvements, these had been implemented promptly and to the person’s satisfaction. The provider had robust audit systems in place, to monitor quality assurance and safety and to drive future improvements.