25 January 2014
During a routine inspection
One person was using the service at the time of our inspection, they were either confidently engaged with a staff member, relaxing or smiling and laughing and they went out for a walk to the shops during the inspection. They told us they liked the house.
We saw staff had a good knowledge of people's needs and communications methods and demonstrated this through their positive interactions with the people who used the service. For example, in interacting with people when needed in the manner they preferred and as recorded in their plans of care.
We noted that people were not formally asked for their consent before any care or treatment was provided and where people did not have capacity the provider did not always act in accordance with legal requirements.
The service provided safe appropriate care, through carrying out initial assessments, planning care based on collating all the required information and making decisions based on risk assessments, so that people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs.
We found that people who used the service, staff and visitors were not always protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises because the provider allowed tripping and other hazards to remain in place, did not ensure all doors had working automatic closing devices and expanding smoke strips to stop the spread of fire and smoke, assessed the need for window restrictors but did not fit them in all windows and did not maintain other window restrictors to a safe working standard.