Archived: 33 New Road

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what the relatives of people using the service and the staff told us.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

A relative told us the staff showed sensitivity towards the people living in the home. They explained staff understood the needs of the people and responded quickly when their needs changed.

We were told advocates were used to ensure care and treatment was provided in a person's best interest. We saw documentation which verified this. Records showed professionals had met to discuss the future welfare of a person who was unable to give their opinion or view on the care being provided. This ensured their human rights were protected and the provider complied within the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff were able to tell us how they would recognise the indicators of abuse, and how they would deal with any concerns appropriately. We asked staff and the relative of a person if they felt the service was safe. They all told us they did. However, they all raised concerns regarding the staffing levels in the home. They told us with the current staffing arrangements and the insufficient number of trained and experienced staff available to work in the home, the service was currently unsafe. This was because staff had to work long hours to cover for the absence.

Is the service effective?

We observed how staff provided care to people and noted their privacy and dignity was maintained and respected.

A relative told us they had been asked to advocate for a person regarding how their care was provided. This ensured where people were unable to express opinions, their representatives were consulted and their views were considered when making decisions about their care and treatment.

Is the service caring?

We were told by a relative staff were sensitive to the needs of people, and intervened quickly if people were showing signs of distress. They told us 'Staff here are extremely dedicated and work extremely hard'they try and make it a home.'

We observed staff interacted with people in a positive and friendly manner, and care was provided in line with their care plans.

Is the service responsive?

Where people lacked the capacity to make their own decisions about the care provided to them, the provider held multi-disciplinary meetings. The purpose of the meetings were for professionals involved in the person's care or welfare to discuss how best to meet the person's needs. We saw these meetings protected the person's human rights.

Care plans had been drawn up to describe how care and treatment was to be carried out. Risk assessments were in place for any activities which posed a risk to people; these outlined how each risk would be managed.

Is the service well led?

At the time of the inspection there was no registered manager in place. An acting assistant manager was covering the day to day management of the home with support from a registered manager from another home.

Staff told us they felt the acting assistant manager did a good job and they had confidence in their abilities. Staff generally felt the provider was not responding to their needs. One staff member told us 'I feel the staff who do work here do an exceptional job, they are very dedicated. I think the company rely on that dedication.'

We asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to staffing levels and quality assurance within the home.

We spoke with two family members of people who used the service. One relative told us in relation to the staff 'I can't do anything but sing their praises.' Another told us they believed their family member was 'Treated well and looked after well.' We spoke with the manager, two staff members and a student nurse on placement at the home. We read the care plans for the three people who live at the home and specific policies and procedures for the areas we were inspecting.

We saw the home was clean, tidy and accessible. It had been decorated in such a way as to offer sensory stimulation whilst balancing a homely and practical environment. We saw staff interacted positively and in a person centred way with people. The staff we spoke with were able to demonstrate their knowledge and skills in how they identified and met people's needs. The people who lived in the home appeared relaxed and comfortable with the staff and their surroundings.