A single 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 is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people's relatives and the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.
Is the service safe?
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continuously improve.
When people were identified as being at risk, their care plans showed the actions that would be required to manage these risks. These included the provision of specialist equipment such as pressure relieving mattresses, hoists and walking aids.
The service had policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provider knew how to request an assessment if this was required. Staff received safeguarding and Mental Capacity Act training. This meant people would be safeguarded as required.
There were sufficient care staff to respond to people's health and welfare needs.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in developing their plans of care, wherever possible. People told us they were included in making decisions about how their care and support was provided. From speaking with staff they were able to demonstrate a good understanding of people's care and support needs.
Suitable arrangements were in place for staff to receive updated training to ensure they had the skills, knowledge and experience to meet the needs of people who used the service. This ensured that the outcomes for people would continue to improve.
There was a resident's forum at the home, which met regularly and where people had the opportunity to discuss things that affected the running of the home.
Is the service caring?
We saw staff were attentive and respectful when speaking with or supporting people. The home had a relaxed and comfortable atmosphere. We saw that there was some good humoured banter between several people living at the home and staff. One person said 'They (staff) are all wonderful. The lasses (staff) look after us all very well. What I like about these lasses here, they all have a sense of humour.'
People looked well cared for and we observed good care practices taking place. We observed the lunchtime experience and saw that staff were calm and unhurried and they spent time with people.
Relatives we spoke with described the home as being 'homely' and staff as being 'friendly' one relative told us 'This home is absolutely fantastic from the day we walked in they(staff) were friendly.' Another said 'X is very well treated here as X constantly tells me this.'
Is the service responsive?
People's needs were assessed and records we looked at showed they received specialist equipment or aids that they needed.
People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
People we spoke with knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy.
When we visited we saw a staff team that acted professionally and responded appropriately to people's care needs. People were being assisted promptly and we saw that the staff had time to spend socialising and engaging with people.
The service carried out an annual satisfaction survey. Results were collated and analysed and action plans in response were agreed and actioned.
Is the service well-led?
The service had a quality assurance system, and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better had been addressed promptly. As a result we could see that the quality of the service was continuously improving.
Staff we spoke with were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and the quality assurance systems in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service. They told us the manager was supportive and promoted positive team working.
Effective management systems were in place to promote and safeguard people's safety and welfare. Such as health and safety records and peoples care records were up to date and had been reviewed regularly.
Relatives we spoke with told us they thought that overall the service ran well. One relative said 'The staff here are lovely and everyone is treated with the same respect.'