We carried out two visits to this home because on the first visit all the people who used the service had been attending community activities. We returned at the weekend to speak with people and observe care being delivered. 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 using the service, and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.
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 cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. Environmental and equipment safety checks were being carried out on a regular basis.
People appeared relaxed with the staff in their interactions with them. One person said they 'felt safe living here.'
There were systems, processes, policies and procedures in place to support safe care delivery. There were up to date risk management plans in relation to falls and behaviours which were clearly documented in people's support plans.
The manager and staff recorded incidents, accidents, complaints and concerns. We saw examples where staff had learned from these events.
We saw food stored in the fridge that had been opened, but not dated or labelled. Open food can cause harm to people as food may be kept beyond a safe time period. We have asked the provider to address this practice immediately.
Staff personnel records did not did not contain all the information required by the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This meant the provider could not demonstrate that staff had received the appropriate training, professional development, supervision and appraisal needed to enable them to deliver care and treatment to people safely and to an appropriate standard.
We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements and meet the requirements of the law in relation to supporting workers.
Is the service effective?
It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff they understood people's care and support needs and they knew them well.
People's care records had been assessed and regularly reviewed. There was evidence of people and their relatives being involved in assessments of their needs and care planning.
We found the care plans required more detail when cross-referencing between risk assessment and personal support plans. There was evidence staff had signed care plan reviews without reading the care plan in detail. The provider told us all care plans would be audited and amended immediately.
Is the service caring?
Our observations of the service showed care staff spoke with and interacted with people who used the service in a patient and pleasant manner. People told us: 'staff are good here.'
Staff supported people in a sensitive way using differing methods of communication to ensure people understood what was going to happen.
We saw staff encouraged people when providing support and allowed people to do things at their own pace and were not rushed. One person told us: 'I cook for myself, I do my own shopping but if I need help they help me.'
People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey, and staff acted on concerns raised.
Is the service responsive?
People's needs were assessed and reviewed on a regular basis. People told us staff provided help when it was needed. Records confirmed people's interests, preferences, aspirations, health and personal care needs had been recorded. We saw that care and support had been provided that met people's wishes. People had access to activities, which were important to them and had been supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.
Is the service well-led?
Staff told us the provider was a good company to work for. We saw evidence people were asked for feedback on the service they received. People's relatives and professionals were asked to complete a customer satisfaction survey. People told us they attended resident meetings on a regular basis where they could raise concerns and knew they would be acted on.
The staff we spoke with said the manager was very supportive and approachable. They told us if they had any concerns or witnessed poor practice they would report their concerns to the manager. They were confident managers would act on their concerns.
We were concerned to note that the registered manager had failed to implement staff supervision and development and senior staff within the organisation had not addressed this prior to our inspection.