A single inspector carried out this inspection. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, from speaking with six people who were using the service, four staff who supported them and with three visiting relatives. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the service and to the support needs of people who were using the service. These included five support plans, daily support records and five staff files.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.
Is the service safe?
People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.
The home had detailed policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This was to ensure that people who could not make decisions themselves were protected. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when a DoLS application should be made, and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.
Staff we spoke with said they had been properly recruited and trained. Staff told us that they received good support in their roles.
Is the service effective?
There was an advocacy service available if people needed it. This meant that, when required, people had access to additional support to help them make decisions.
People's health and care needs were assessed and they were involved in their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. A person who used the service we spoke with told us, 'The staff are lovely, they spoil me, I'm happy here.' Another person told us, 'I like it here, everything is done for me by the staff who are all pretty good.'
A relative said, 'We are very pleased that our relative is living in this home, the staff are kind and good at keeping us informed about our relative.' Other comments we received from relatives were, 'The staff are approachable and listen to our views, they are also caring and always busy making sure our relative's needs are being met.'
The responses and views of people who used the service, their relatives and staff involved with the service provision, were recorded at the annual quality monitoring review. Any shortfalls or concerns raised were addressed.
People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided by staff in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People had the opportunity to enjoy a range of activities and, mostly with staff support, were able to get out and about in the local community.
A person who used the service we spoke with told us, 'The staff are always around, they ask me if I'm alright, if I tell them if I'm not happy about something they try to sort it out for me.'
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to ensure all aspects of people's needs were being met.
Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the aims of the home and of the standards of care and support that was expected of them.
Regular service monitoring processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.
A relative we spoke with told us, 'I am happy that my relative is in this home, the staff show kindness towards my relative and the managers and staff are good at keeping me updated about my relative's health.'