Archived: Feckenham Road

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. Due to their health conditions or complex needs, people were not able to share their views about the care that they received. We observed their experiences to support our inspection. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with two relatives on the telephone following our inspection, two staff supporting people and looking at everyone's care records.

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

Is the service safe?

All of the relatives we spoke with told us that they felt people were safe. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. All of the staff we spoke with were aware of the provider's whistleblowing policy.

The provider had appropriate policies and procedures to protect people's rights and choices and gain their consent to the care and support they received. The provider's policies reflected the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were aware of people's rights and how to uphold them.

Staff knew about risk management plans and we saw that they supported people in line with those plans.

People were protected against the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration.

The manager ensured that staff rotas were planned in advance to maintain the staffing numbers required to provide care in a safe way. The staff had the training and support required to ensure that people's needs were met.

Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and checks made on the service. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them as much as possible and family members were involved. All of the relatives we spoke with told us they were involved in the care planning and reviews of care. We saw that care plans were regularly updated.

Where people had complex needs that required the input of specialist health care services, assessments had been made by the appropriate professionals. Their recommendations were carried out by the staff. This meant the provider worked well with other services to ensure people's health care needs were met.

People's health was maintained by the provision of appropriate and sufficient choices of food and drinks.

Staff received the appropriate training to meet the diverse needs of people who used the service.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by care staff that were kind and caring. We saw that care staff gave people encouragement and were patient with them. One relative told us, "The manager and staff are amazing, they are genuinely caring".

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

Is the service responsive?

People had the opportunity to engage in different activities each day.

All of the relatives we spoke with were aware of the home's complaints procedure and knew how to raise concerns. One relative told us, 'They are responsive to any requests you make'. The provider sought the views of people about their care and acted on them.

Where staff had noticed people's changing needs, their care plans had been updated to reflect this.

Is the service well led?

The service had quality assurance and risk management systems in place. Records seen by us indicated that shortfalls in the service were addressed promptly.

The staff were well supported to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to carry out the care people needed. Staff were given feedback about their performance so improvements could be made where needed.

All of the staff we spoke with told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and understood the quality assurance and risk management systems. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality of care. Staff told us the home was well organised and they felt supported by their manager.

Family members were very positive about the care and support provided. One family member said that they were: 'More than happy. They (staff) have really made the effort with X (person's name), plenty of activities'. Another told us that they were very happy with the care they had seen: 'Great confidence in the staff and feel I can trust them. They are open and honest'.

It was clear from what we saw on the day of our inspection that staff knew people which included their social and health care needs. This was demonstrated in the individual support people received from staff. What we saw matched the pictorial care plans that were personal to each person and written for people who lived at the home. We saw positive interactions between staff and people with lots of laughter during the day.

We saw that people who lived at the home had their medicines as prescribed at the right time and in the right way. This made sure people's health needs were effectively met.

We saw that the provider had effective systems in place that made sure before staff came to work at the home essential checks were completed. This meant that staff suitability to work at the home was examined and staff received an induction so that people were not at risk from harm.

Family members that we spoke with told us that if they were not happy with the care and support their relation received they would tell the manager or staff. The provider had responsive systems in place to monitor and review people's experiences and complaints.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still the Registered Manager on our register at the time.

We met all the people living there and spoke two staff to find out their views about the service provided. People were unable to express their views verbally with us, so we spent time observing how staff supported them. Following our inspection we spoke with two family members by telephone.

People made choices about what they did and what they ate and were supported to develop their independence skills.

Staff supported people to meet their health needs to ensure their well being. We observed that staff interacted well with people.

Staff knew how to safeguard the people living at the home from harm. We observed that people were comfortable in the company of staff.

Staff received the training they needed to be able to support the people living there. Staff told us they were well supported and enjoyed working there.

The quality monitoring processes that were employed in the home ensured people received a good standard of care and where improvements were needed these were listened to with actions taken.