One inspector visited the home and answered our five questions, is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with six people using the service, several staff, the manager and a visiting professional. We reviewed five care plans, four staff files and other relevant records.
Is the service safe?
Care plans instructed staff how to meet people's needs in a way which minimised risk for the individual. They were detailed and ensured staff cared for people in a safe way. People told us they felt: 'very safe' living in the home.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We found that the home had trained their staff with regard to DoLS and understood when a DoLS referral may be necessary. The type of care the home provided and the needs of the people who lived there meant that it had never been necessary to deprive people of their liberty.
We found that medication was stored and administered safely.
The home made sure that staff were well trained and supported to enable them to provide safe care to the people who lived there.
Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and staff continually monitored the quality and safety of care offered to people.
Health and safety was taken seriously by the home and all the appropriate safety checks had been completed. This reduced the risks to the people who lived in the home, staff and visitors.
Effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them, their consent was gained and they were helped to make informed decisions about their lifestyle and recovery plan. Care plans were detailed and clearly identified people's needs and how they should be met. We saw that staff gave support as described in individual's care plans.
One person said: 'I really like living here and I feel so much better' and another told us: 'I now believe I have a future'.
Caring?
People were supported by caring and patient staff. We saw that care staff constantly offered advice and guidance in a positive way. They showed understanding and knowledge of the individual's personality and needs.
We noted that care staff worked hard to provide support and guidance to people to help them to look after their physical and mental health. They worked closely with other professionals to support people's recovery.
People's diversity, values and human rights were respected. Care plans were individualised and person 'centred. We saw that people were treated with respect and dignity by the staff.
Responsive?
Care plans were reviewed regularly and amended, as necessary, to meet people's current needs. We saw that people could amend their care plans whenever they wanted to and had weekly meetings with their key workers. People who lived in the home were involved in the decision making process about all aspects of their care.
The home had received one complaint in 2014. This had been investigated and properly dealt with. People told us they knew how to make complaints and one said: 'I'm sure the manager or the staff would deal with my complaint quickly'.
We saw that the provider investigated accidents, incidents and near misses and took any action required to minimise the risk of recurrence.
Well led?
Staff members told us that they were supported to do their job well. They said that they felt valued and their views were listened to.
The service had a variety of methods and procedures, including a formal quality assurance system, to monitor the quality of the care they were providing. We saw records which showed that the home identified shortfalls and the actions to be taken to address them. Additionally they asked for the views of the people who lived in the home and acted on them, as appropriate. As a result the quality of the service was being maintained or improved.