Archived: Somerley

One inspector carried out an inspection on 26 September 2014. The focus of the inspection was to answer the five key questions we always ask: Is the service safe? Is the service caring? Is the service effective? Is the service responsive to people's needs? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what the people using the service, their relatives 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.

Is the service safe?

People were provided with care that considered risks to the health and well-being of the person. Care records showed that risk assessments were kept under review and were updated as necessary. There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to make one.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff were patient and gave people time to respond when they spoke to them. People told us they were able to do as they wish. One person said, 'I can do what I want. I like to go to my room in the afternoon and have a doze.' A visitor told us they had no concerns about the home and the care given to their relative.

Is the service effective?

People said they were very happy with the care and support they received and felt in control of their day to day living. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs and how they should be supported. They understood the specific needs of those people living at the home with memory loss and dementia and how they should be supported.

Is the service responsive to people's needs?

There were processes in place to regularly review and update assessments of need and care records. This was so that people received the care they needed. Changes made to the way care was delivered was clearly recorded. Key workers were allocated to people so that all their physical and emotional needs were considered. People had access to activities that were important to them and had been supported to maintain relationships with friends and relatives.

Is the service well led?

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They felt well supported by senior staff and the manager. One staff member said, 'There is always support available if I need it.' Staff meeting minutes showed that staff received advice and guidance that reflected their role.

The service had a quality assurance system in place that sought the views of people living at the home. Actions were taken to address the matters that were identified in the last survey.

The manager told us that the purpose of the home was to accommodate older people who could no longer, or did not wish to live independently. They did not provide a service, specialist or otherwise, for people with dementia. Although the provider indicated that this may change in the future, at the time we inspected they did not admit people with dementia care needs unless, as the manager said, "They were in the very early stages of the disease.'

There were thirty eight people living at the home when we did our inspection. No one had a formal diagnosis of dementia although some people were described as having, 'Memory loss' and it was suspected that some may have had dementia.

We found that people received care and support which met their needs and protected their rights. Staff were familiar with the steps they needed to take to protect people's dignity. Collaborative working arrangements had been established between the home and providers of other services which helped ensure people's needs were met. Improvements were needed to ensure that staff had access to guidance on how to meet people's individual assessed needs.

The provider had a quality monitoring system which helped them assess their service against their organisations objectives and against the performance of their other homes although this did not include how the service understood and met the needs of people who lived with memory loss.

We found that the staff had access to regular training, performance review and appraisal. Many staff had been working for the service for a long time and had gained experience which the service enabled them to share with newer members of staff through 'train the trainer' schemes.

The service asked for the views of people using the service, relatives and staff. We found evidence that changes were implemented as a result of feedback.