Our inspection team was made up of one inspector. During our inspection visit we spoke with two of the eight people who used the service, the proprietor, the manager, and two staff. We also looked at records, including assessments, care plans, training records and other documents related to the operation of the service?. Where it was not possible to communicate with some people we used our observations to gather information. Below is a summary of what we found. We used the evidence we collected during our inspection to answer five questions.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, 'The staff are good.' One person said, 'Staff help me to look after myself.'
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service safe?
Records contained detailed assessments of people's needs that had been carried out prior to them moving to the home. Any training needed for staff to support people safely was identified and provided prior to the person moving to the service and if their needs changed. This ensured that the staff had the relevant skills and knowledge required to meet the individual's identified needs.
Where people did not have the mental capacity to provide consent the provider complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff had received training in this area. The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. Whilst no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
Is the service effective?
Where people were able they told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that they understood people's care and support needs and that they knew the people well.
People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist dietary needs had been identified in care plans where required. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
The training that staff had received equipped them to meet the needs of the people who used the service.
Is the service responsive?
There was information on how to make a complaint if people were unhappy. This was in a variety of formats that met people's individual communication needs. Monthly service user meetings took place where people had an opportunity to provide feedback on the service. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.
Is the service well led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result, the quality of the service was continuously improving.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and that they received excellent support and supervision from the manager. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service. We saw that all staff had accessed National vocational qualifications ranging from level two to level four. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service from trained and competent staff at all times.