Edward House

People were safe and continued to receive safe care. The risks to people’s safety were regularly reviewed and processes were in place to protect people from avoidable harm. Sufficient numbers of staff were in place to keep people safe and safe recruitment procedures ensured people were protected from the risks of unsuitable staff. People’s medicines were managed safely; although a small number of protocols relating to ‘as needed’ medicines were required.

Staff were well trained, felt supported and were able to carry out their role effectively. Where people were able to make their own decisions about their care and support needs, their wishes were respected by staff. Where people were unable, the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were always followed. People were encouraged to eat and drink healthily. People’s day to day health needs were monitored and referrals to external professionals were made where needed and in a timely manner. External professionals felt staff responded to their guidance when provided.

People were supported by staff who were very kind and caring and treated them with respect and dignity. People were encouraged to lead independent lives and care and support was tailored to enable people to do so. People had an excellent relationship with the staff. All people were treated equally with a strong emphasis on supporting people’s diverse needs, including their religion. People were supported to lead their lives in the way they wanted with their views and opinions being respected. People were provided with the information they needed if they wished to speak with an independent advocate, to support them with decisions about their care. People’s friends and relatives were able to visit whenever they wanted to and where relatives were unable to visit, alternative methods were used to support family contact.

People were supported to carry out the activities that interested them. Care plans were person centred and focused on what was important to each person. People felt able to make a complaint and that it would be acted.

The service was well-led. People, relatives, staff and professionals commented positively about the registered manager. There was a calm, open and friendly atmosphere at the home which resulted in a high quality of service for people. Effective auditing processes were in place, with regular input from representatives of the provider.

Medication was stored safely and audits were taking place to identify issues with administration. Staff were trained in how to administer medication and two people we spoke with told us they received their medication from staff when they were supposed to.

Staff were being given training to assist them to support people safely. People we spoke with gave positive feedback in relation to the staff. One person told us, 'I am very happy, the staff are lovely.'

People we spoke with told us they would feel comfortable raising issues with the manager or staff and felt confident that any complaint would be dealt with by the manager. One person told us, 'You only have to tell them and it is sorted out.'

We looked at the care plans and records of four people who used the service. We found people's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual plan.

Staff were aware of the appropriate reporting processes should an allegation of abuse be raised, ensuring people were protected at all times. People using the service could be confident that staff had been screened as to their suitability to work with vulnerable adults.

The provider had an effective quality assurance system.