21 May 2014
During a routine inspection
Below is a summary of what we found. 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.
Is the service safe?
We found care and treatment had been planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. For example, we saw a comprehensive assessment of the person's needs and a range of risk assessments had been completed. We saw that where people had been assessed as being at risk from pressure sores, suitable equipment had been provided to minimise the risk.
We saw that people were protected from the risk of abuse because reasonable steps had been taken to identify the possibility of abuse and to prevent abuse. Staff were able to tell us about different types of abuse and what they would do if they suspected abuse was occurring. Staff told us and records confirmed that they had recently received training on safeguarding vulnerable people.
Staff personnel records contained all the information required by the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This meant the Registered Provider demonstrated that the staff employed to work at the home were suitable and had the skills and experience needed to support the people living in the home.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. The Registered Manager had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.
Is the service effective?
We found care and treatment had been planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. For example, we saw a comprehensive assessment of the person's needs and a range of risk assessments had been completed. We saw that where people had been assessed as being at risk from pressure sores, suitable equipment had been provided to minimise the risk.
We discussed people's care needs with staff and they told us about people's needs and how they liked their care to be delivered. Staff we spoke with were able to tell us what they did to support people and knew what to do for them if they needed any additional support. For example, staff told us about one person who was very independent, but occasionally had dizzy spells and needed more help during these times.
Is the service caring?
People we spoke with told us that they were supported to make their own decisions and were able to make choices about how they spent their day. One person told us how staff respected their decision to maintain their independence.
During out observations and conversations we saw and heard examples of staff being respectful and treating people with dignity. One person told us 'They (staff) always speak nicely to me and they are very respectful'.
People living at the home spoke highly of the care received. One person told us 'Nothing is too much trouble (for staff).' 'Before you can ask for something ' it's there!'
Is the service responsive?
We saw that one person was given a drink and a piece of cake, when staff asked why the person hadn't eaten the cake, the person said because they didn't like that type of cake. The staff member got a different type of cake which the person thoroughly enjoyed.
We saw that staff paid respect to people's religion. For example, one person told us how staff enabled them to attend religious services within the home.
We saw that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. For example, we saw that where people had been assessed as needing help with personal care, there was evidence in the daily records that this help had been given.
We saw evidence that the care plans had been regularly reviewed and updated as people's needs changed. We saw that care plans had been signed by people's representatives to show their agreement with the plans.
Is the service well-led?
The Registered Manager had worked at the home for some time, and there was a consistent staff team. Staff were aware of the needs of the people living at the home and were able to meet them.
Staff that we spoke with told us that sometimes more staff were needed at certain times. They told us that recently extra staff had been employed for a few hours in the evening, but they would like additional help in the laundry. We spoke with the Registered Manager and Registered Provider who told us that when staff had told them more help was needed, this had been addressed immediately and that extra hours had been provided. They told us that staffing levels were always kept under review. All the people living at the home that we spoke with told us that although staff were always busy, they never had to wait for their needs to be met.
The Registered Provider took note of reports prepared by the Commission following an inspection. We know this because following our visit in November 2013 the Registered Provider made the required improvements in relation to people's health and welfare.
There was an effective system in operation which was designed to enable the Registered Provider to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the services provided. For example, we saw copy of a monthly report prepared by the Registered Manager for the Registered Provider. This report detailed all the audits that had been completed by the Registered Manager.