When we visited Phil Mead House we spoke with the manager, care staff, two visitors and six people who lived there. We were told there were 24 people in the home on the day of our visit. We looked at five outcomes to answer the following 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. If you would like to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People's needs were assessed before people moved to Phil Mead House to make sure their needs could be met.
Care staff we spoke with told us they used people's care plans to make sure they understood how to deliver care in a safe and appropriate way.
We saw prescribed medicines were given to people when they needed them.
All the people we spoke with told us they felt safe living at Phil Mead House.
We saw there was a Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 policy in place. The manager understood her responsibilities under the MCA and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We were told that no DoLS applications had been made. We saw records that showed staff had received some training in mental capacity awareness.
Is the service effective?
People had an individual care plan which explained what their needs were. People told us they had been involved in their care assessment. They told us their contributions had been listened to and included in their plan of care.
People had access to health care professionals who visited the home on a weekly basis to support people's health care needs.
We found staff had received the necessary training and supervision to enable them to provide safe and appropriate care for people.
Is the service caring?
We saw staff were kind, caring and patient in their approach towards people. We saw when staff carried out care tasks they treated people with dignity and respect.
We spoke with two relatives and six people who used the service. We asked them their views of the staff. They told us, 'I can't sing their praises enough.' 'Excellent, all very pleasant.' 'I can't speak highly enough of them.'
Is the service responsive?
We saw regular reviews of people's care plans were carried out. This enabled changes in people's needs to be identified and acted upon. We saw care plans reflected people's changing needs.
We saw when staff identified health concerns these were promptly followed up with a health professional. This meant people promptly received any medical treatment required to maintain their health.
People told us they felt confident in raising any concerns with the manager and felt they would be addressed. All of the people we spoke with were satisfied with the service they received.
Is the service well led?
We found the service had an effective quality monitoring system in place. We saw the provider carried out monthly quality monitoring visits to the home. This was to check the standards of care and services provided at the home were in accordance with the organisations policies and procedures. We saw reports of the visits were completed which contained action points for the manager where appropriate.
We saw 21 people had participated in a quality satisfaction survey carried out in December 2013. The outcome report showed a high level of satisfaction with the service.