A pharmacist inspector from the Care Quality Commission visited the service. There were 21 people living in the service. We looked at the medicine administration records for six people and how the service stored and managed medicines.
We found that appropriate arrangements were being undertaken in order to manage the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.
We were told by the provider that systems would be in place to audit and monitor medication administration by 20 May 2013.
A pharmacist inspector from the Care Quality Commission visited the home. This was in order to look at medicine management. There were 21 people living in the home. We looked at the medicine administration records for ten people and how the service stored and managed medicines.
We spoke with one person living in the home who looked after their own medicines. They told us 'I know what they are all for and can take them when I need them'. Another person we spoke with told us 'they always remember my eye drops'. Although people told us that they were given their medicines safely, we found that medicine records had not always been correctly documented to show that people had been given their medicines as prescribed.
We found that appropriate arrangements were not being undertaken in order to manage the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.
We have carried out an inspection to make sure that the necessary changes had been made and found the provider was meeting the standards included within this report.
We spoke with seven people who lived at the home, three care staff, the deputy manager, the manager and a visiting professional on the day of our visit.
We were told by some of the people that they had been involved in their care and treatment.
We saw people's care files contained up to date information. This meant staff had information available about the people they looked after.
Care staff had received up to date training in how to protect vulnerable adults and knew what actions to take if they had any concerns.
We saw medication records were not easy to follow and when any discrepancies had been identified the reason for these discrepancies were not being documented.
We saw that staff had been recruited in an appropriate way and checks had been undertaken to ensure that they were suitable to care for vulnerable people.
Systems were in place for the provider to monitor the quality of service provided at Adelaide House. There was a process in place to enable people to raise concerns about the service.
Prior to the inspection we had received information which raised concerns about the choices people were able to make about their care. We checked out these concerns during our review and spoke to the manager and reported our findings to the local authority.
We found some people's preferences were not being met and we observed poor practice of dignity and respect to one person who lived at Adelaide House.
Mostly people who used the service told us they received their care as they requested. They told us they were spoken to by their preferred name and were treated with respect.
People told us 'I am quite happy with the care I get, I am quite happy and content."
We saw people's needs had been assessed and that care plans included risks to people's health and well being. The care records had been regularly reviewed to identify any change in the needs of people who lived at the home.
We found that the manager was not always referring safeguarding concerns to the local authority.
Staff told us they felt supported, met regularly with their senior carer and had training opportunities available.
We saw staff recruitment processes were in place, for example Criminal Record Bureau (CRB).
We saw quality assurance systems in place which measured people's satisfaction with the service provided in the home.
We saw that staff were respectful towards people and addressed them by their preferred names. People spoken with about the staff told us: 'Very good, no problems what so ever.' 'The staff are exceptionally kind and helpful.'
There were some social activities being organised but the range of these was limited. Some people participated in these and others chose not to. People told us: 'There are things, they throw a ball about and play skittles, I don't participate in that I do my own thing.' 'In the summer when it was good I was in the garden morning and afternoon to get some exercise'
We saw that a choice of meals was being provided and people told us the food was good. Comments included: 'It's good there is no doubt about it, it is good. You are bound to get things you don't like but there is a choice.' 'The food in the main is very good'.'
People told us if they had any concerns they felt comfortable to raise these with the manager or deputy manager. They told us: 'If you ask for something you get it.' 'You can always get hold of somebody.' 'I have got nothing but good things to say about here.'
Staff spoken with had a good knowledge of the people they were supporting and people told us that staff kept them informed of what was going on in the home. We saw that 'resident' meetings took place on a six monthly basis so that people could be kept informed and could discuss issues relating to the running of the home.
We saw that people's rooms contained their own pictures photographs and small items of furniture so they had a 'homely' feel.