A single inspector conducted the inspection and helped to answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, from speaking with people who use the service and a relative, from speaking with the staff supporting them and from looking at records. We spoke with seven people who lived in the home although they did not all comment on the service provided. One person told us 'it is really nice here, I like it.'
If you would like 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. There were safeguarding procedures and staff received training so that they understood how to safeguard the people they supported. When there had been concerns these were reported appropriately to the local safeguarding team for investigation.
Each person had a series of risk assessments which included the action that was needed to reduce risk and keep people safe. There were also general risk assessments and risk management plans so that the people who lived in the home, staff and visitors were kept safe.
There were systems to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to improve continually.
The home had policies and procedures about the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and applications had been made when necessary. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and about how to submit one. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required.
The home looked safe, clean and hygienic. We saw hand washing facilities and hand gel for staff and visitors. Staff wore plastic aprons and gloves when giving personal care and when serving food. These measures helped to control the spread of infection.
We saw that there were enough staff so that they were not rushed and could respond to people calmly. This helped to make sure that people's needs were always met. Before staff were employed they had thorough recruitment checks to make sure they were suitable to work with people. Staff received a range of training and most of them had relevant qualifications so that they had the right skills to support people and keep them safe.
A senior manager visited once a month to monitor the quality of service and make sure that practice was safe. There was an enclosed rear garden where people could walk about safely.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them and they had signed a record to show that they consented to them. Information about people's previous lives and their likes and dislikes were recorded in their plans. People told us that the service was flexible to meet the needs. For example, they could get up and go to bed when they wanted and stay in their rooms or go to the lounge. One person said that it was "free and easy here, there are no rules, you can do what you like." When we looked at the care plans we saw that they were regularly reviewed so that they reflected people's current needs.
There was a quiet lounge so that people could have visitors in private away from their bedrooms. We saw that visiting times were flexible and relatives were visiting at different times of the day.
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 told us that the care was very good. People told us that the staff always asked them what they would like before giving care or support. One person said. "They look after me really well." Another person said. "The staff are all very good."
People's relatives, staff 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 line with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. The home had an activity co-ordinator. Staff took care to find out what each person was interested in so that they could provide activities that suited their needs.
People's relatives knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. There had been only one recent complaint. We looked at how this had been dealt with, and found that the response had been open, thorough, and timely. People could therefore be assured that complaints were investigated and action was taken as necessary.
There were surveys to obtain people's views and action was taken in response to comments.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked with other agencies such as the social care commissioners, district nurse and GP to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. The service has notified CQC of incidents as required.
The service had a quality assurance system. We saw records, which showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.
Staff we spoke with were clear about their roles and responsibilities. The manager told us that the senior managers in the organisation provided good support and direction.