One adult social care inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people who used the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.
We spoke with five people who lived at the home, two relatives and a visiting GP. We also spoke with three members of staff, who were the registered manager and two care workers.
If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
This is a summary of what we found.
Is the service safe?
People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People who used the service told us they felt safe. A relative told us, "It's reassuring to know that mum is safe and well cared for here."
Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and staff learnt 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.
The manager had full responsibility for the selection and recruitment of new staff. They took people's care and support needs into account when they made decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped ensure that people's needs were met.
Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practices were identified and people were protected.
The home had policies and procedures in relation to safeguarding adults at risk, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We saw that staff had completed training on the subject and further training had been identified as needed in relation to the recent changes in DoLS. Staff had also received relevant safeguarding training to understand and recognise abuse and were aware of the process for reporting such abuse.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and, as far as practicable, they were involved in developing and reviewing their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.
People's needs were taken into account with the accessible layout of the service, enabling people to move around freely and safely.
Visitors confirmed that they were able to see people in private and that visiting times were flexible.
The home had systems in place to assess and manage risks and to provide safe and effective care. Staff were appropriately trained and training was refreshed and updated regularly. Staff could also take the opportunities provided to study for additional qualifications and to develop their understanding of caring for people with complex needs.
We also found evidence of staff seeking advice, where appropriate, from the GP or social services. A visiting GP we spoke with described the effective working relationship with the service and the high level of care provided. They told us, 'It's a well-managed home and the care is very good. I would be happy for my parents to live here.'
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 person who used the service told us, "The staff here are all very kind and caring."
We spoke with relatives who said they were able to visit the service at any time and they were always made to feel welcome. We saw that the staff took time interacting patiently and sensitively with people throughout the home. We observed that people were treated with consideration, dignity and respect.
People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.
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 responsive?
People had the opportunity to take part in a range of social and recreational activities, reflecting their interests and preferences, both in and outside the service.
People's needs were assessed before they moved into the and comprehensive care plans and risk assessments were maintained and reviewed regularly. This ensured that the care and support provided reflected any identified changes in people's individual needs.
We were told by the manager that the service had good systems in place to monitor its own standards of service delivery and to gain feedback from people who used the service, their relatives and other stakeholders. As well as satisfaction questionnaires, the manager told us they frequently carried out a range of internal audits, including care planning, medication and staff training.
People told us they were asked for their views on the service and their feedback was heard and, where necessary, changes were made as a result. People and their relatives, who we spoke with, said they would be happy to raise any issues or concerns that they might have and were confident that their concerns would be listened to and acted upon. One person told us, 'I wouldn't hesitate to speak to Audrey (the manager) about anything. She is always very approachable and very helpful.'
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care and support in a joined up and consistent way.
The service had established quality assurance systems in place and records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service provision continued to improve.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff showed a good awareness of the ethos of the service and a sound understanding of the care and support needs of people who used the service. They told us that they felt valued and supported by the manager and were happy and confident in their individual roles.