We visited this service and talked with people, staff and visitors and observed interactions between people and the staff caring for them. This helped us to gain a balanced overview of what people experienced, what they thought and how they were cared for and supported. There were 39 people living in the home at the time of our visit. We spoke with two visitors, twelve people living there, four staff and the quality assurance manager. We considered all of the evidence that we had gathered under the outcomes that we inspected. We used that information to answer the five questions that we always ask.
Below is a summary of what we found.
The detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.
Is the service safe?
All of the people spoken with said that they were happy at the home. One person told us, 'They're all nice here.' Our observations showed that people were happy in the presence of staff and smiled and chatted with them. A visitor to the home told us, 'People look content.'
We saw that people's individual needs and associated risks had been assessed and plans to provide care safely were in place. There were enough suitably trained staff to care for people. This meant people's needs were met safely.
We saw that medicines were managed safely so that people received their medication as prescribed.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) which applies to care homes and hospitals. No applications to restrict anyone's liberty had been made. The staff and managers understood how this legislation applied to people and protected their rights.
All of the staff spoken with were alert to the signs of, or the potential for, abuse of vulnerable adults. Procedures were in place to safeguard people from harm and they were reviewed regularly to prevent the risk of abuse. We sampled some staff files and found that they all contained the required pre-employment checks. This meant that the provider ensured that people employed were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.
There was a system in place to record accidents and incidents. These were reviewed and an analysis undertaken to identify potential trends so that lessons could be learnt to minimise the risk in the future . We saw that equipment such as pressure mats were used to alert staff when people at risk of falling got up so that they could be attended to quickly.
Is the service effective?
We saw that people's care and health needs were met at the home and where appropriate referrals were made to health care professionals. One person told us that they were happy to be home after a stay in hospital.
We saw that people were supported to take part in individual activities that were planned for. We observed people taking part in meaningful activities.
The environment was safe and clean and met the needs of the people living there because the appropriate adaptations were in place to support people to move around freely and for their needs to be met appropriately.
Staff training was sufficient to meet all the needs of people using the service.
Is the service caring?
Staff responded to people's needs in a caring and appropriate way ensuring that they were comforted. Staff spoke with people in a tone that expressed friendship and support and offered people choices throughout the day. Conversations with staff showed that they considered people to be an individual and expressed respect for them and their relatives.
All the people we spoke with told us that the staff were kind. One person told us that they thought staff were, 'Kind.' Another person told us, 'They look after me great here.' A relative told us, 'I am happy with X's care.'
People that used the service and their relatives were asked for feedback about the quality of the service provided so that improvements could be made where needed.
Is the service responsive?
We saw that care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly so that people's changing care needs were identified and actions taken to ensure they were met.
We saw that people with dementia were supported appropriately so that their emotional needs were met. We saw that staff had received training in caring for people with dementia. This meant that staff skills were developed in response to people's needs.
We saw that complaints were looked into and responded to in a timely manner.
Is the service well led?
There was a registered manager in post and the provider ensured that they were supported to ensure the service continued to improve and meet people's needs.
We saw documented evidence that showed that the provider worked with other health care professionals and made referrals for advice and guidance when needed. One visiting professional told us that they felt that the home provided good care.
Staff were supported to meet the needs of people through the provision of regular training, supervision and staff meetings that enabled good practice to be developed.
There was a robust system in place to monitor the quality of the service they provided. This included regular audits of all aspects of the care and support given to people and the views of relatives and professionals who visited the home. Action plans were produced and implemented when necessary.