Archived: Fen Road

The people we met at our inspection could not, because of their complex needs, tell us verbally about their experiences and so we used observation to help us understand their experience of the service. We also looked at care records and gained feedback from staff about people's care and support needs. We talked with carers and/or family members and friends of people who were using the service. Below is a summary of what we found.

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

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), to ensure that people who could not make decisions themselves were protected. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when a DoLs application should be made, and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected. Staff we spoke with said they had been properly recruited and trained. Staff told us that they received good support in their roles.

Is the service effective?

There was an advocacy service available if people needed it. This meant that, when required, people had access to additional support to help them make decisions.

People's health and care needs were assessed and they were involved in their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. A relative said, 'We are tremendously lucky to have this home for our relative to live in, the care is marvellous'. Other comments we received from relatives were, 'The staff are kind and helpful'. 'Staff have always kept us informed about my relative's health'.

The responses and views of people using the service, their relatives and professionals involved with the service provision, were recorded at the annual service review. Any shortfalls or concerns raised were addressed.

People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided by staff in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People had the opportunity to enjoy a range of activities and, with staff support, were able to get out and about in the local and wider community. The service had use of an adapted vehicle, which enabled good access to community based facilities. A relative we spoke with told us, 'There are a lot of activities for my relative to take part in, staff are good at finding out what people like to do'.

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.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the aims of the home and of the standards of care and support expected of them. Service monitoring processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

A relative we spoke with told us, 'We are happy that my relative is in this home, the staff are attentive to my relative's needs and the managers and staff are good at keeping me updated about my relatives wellbeing'.

We heard staff talk to people in a way that showed genuine affection and care for their well-being. One relative we spoke with told us that staff really: 'Develop relationships with clients', and provided care sensitively that met their individual needs. Another relative told us their family member was: 'Extremely well looked after'.

People's ability to make informed decisions for themselves in relation to their personal care, health care and safety had been assessed by staff. Staff we spoke with told us they regularly contacted people's relatives to seek their views about any changes to care where people lacked capacity to decide things for themselves.

One relative we spoke with told us that it was refreshing that the culture of the home was non-clinical and as a result people received good care and support from staff in a friendly, warm environment. They went on to say that staff came across as: 'Positive and happy in their work, which was transmitted to clients'.

There were sufficient staff to support the people at the home, and meet their needs.

We found that there were appropriate support plans and risk assessments in place detailing people's support needs and how these needs were to be met by staff. There were policies and procedures, records, and monitoring systems in place for the protection of people who used the service. Staff were trained and well supported by the manager so that they could carry out their caring responsibilities effectively.