We carried out an inspection of Pilton House on 21 September 2012. We received some concerning information, which meant that we focussed on the outcomes for people with regard to consent, nutrition and hydration, management of medicines, staffing and quality assurance. We found that the service was compliant with all of these outcomes for people.There were 27 people living at the home when we visited. We looked at the records of four people in detail, and spoke with nine people about their experiences at the service. However, some people were not able to comment directly on their care so we spent time with them to help us understand what life was like at the home. This meant we spent time observing care and people's interactions with staff to see whether they had positive experiences. To do this we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us about their experiences of care. We used SOFI for one hour in the lounge and spent another hour and half with people whilst they were having their lunch and evening meals. We spoke with two relatives of people living at the home, five staff and the deputy manager.
People said that they felt safe and in control of their day to day lives. For example, one person said the 'Staff are very kind, we're treated very well'. Another person told us 'I decide how I spend my time and where I want to be and the staff respect it'. We saw that people had freedom of movement throughout the home. Some people did not have capacity to make decisions and relatives told us 'We're always involved and kept informed about every little thing that happens to Mum'.
People told us that they were satisfied with the variety and quality of food available. For example, one person said 'Lunch is lovely, I've had two of these desserts already' and another person said 'We get excellent variety. Today we've had fish and chips, with ice cream for dessert. I feel very full and satisfied now'. Another person told us they had put on weight since moving into the home, which they told us was a good outcome for them.
Medicines we were told were well managed. We saw people being prompted to take medicines that were prescribed for them by their GP. People told us that they regularly saw their GPs and their medicines were reviewed with them. People told us 'I let the staff deal with my tablets, it's much easier and I get them when I should do otherwise I might forget'.
People told us that if they needed help, it was given promptly and they did not have to wait for assistance. For example, we were told 'There's always plenty of staff around, if I need help I just call'.
People said that the home was 'well run'. Two relatives told us they were 'Always made welcome' and 'Kept up to date' with developments at the home and about their relations wellbeing.
At this inspection, we did not make any compliance actions although we made the provider aware of a couple of areas that they might improve. These related to the provider's arrangements for recording the legal status of relatives under the Mental Capacity Act 2005; practices when feeding people; and where skin creams that had been prescribed for people should be applied.