Archived: 2 Headstone Lane

At the last inspection on the 5 February 2015 the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Staff spoken with demonstrated a good understanding of how to recognise and report allegations of abuse. Since our last inspection a new risk management system had been introduced which used the traffic light system to assess and respond to risk based on their severity. For example, red the highest and green the lowest risk. Medicines were managed safely and sufficient staff were deployed to ensure people’s needs were met.

Staff were provided with a range of role specific training and the registered manager ensured that regular support was provided in form of regularly planned supervisions and appraisals. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service support this practice. People were involved and encouraged to take part in the preparation of meals.

Staff demonstrated a caring attitude towards people who used the service and ensured their dignity and privacy was maintained.

A new format of person centred care records had been introduced which ensured that care provided was centred around people who used the service. People were clear how to raise concerns. The service had not received any complaints since our last inspection.

The management at Headstone Lane was visible and involved in the care provided to people. Staff told us that the manager was supportive and approachable and would listen to suggestions made in how to improve the quality of care provided. Regular review and monitoring of care ensured that the quality of care was not compromised.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

As part of this inspection we spoke with one person who lived at the home, three relatives, four members of staff and the registered manager. We looked at records relating to the management of the home which included four care plans, daily care records and records about the training and supervision of staff. We looked at how the service monitored its own performance and the quality of care provided.

Is the service safe?

We found sufficient staff were available to deliver people's care and support needs and they received the training required to provide safe, appropriate care and support. Appropriate checks were carried out before staff started working with people to ensure they had the appropriate knowledge, skills and experience to meet people's care and support needs.

Staff had good knowledge of risk management plans in place to support people's individual needs.

The provider had an effective system in place to analyse any incidents that occurred when providing care and support for people in their homes. The registered manager demonstrated how concerns were investigated with necessary actions identified, taken and followed up. Records were accurately maintained, which meant the risk of people receiving unsafe care was minimised.

Is the service caring?

People told us they were treated with respect and dignity by the staff and they felt safe in the service. We found people were supported appropriately and sensitively by kind and considerate staff. We spoke with staff who told us about how they provided care and support. The person we spoke with was very positive about the staff supporting them. They told us, 'The people who work here are very nice. They are my friends.' A relative told us, 'I can't fault them. The staff are really good there.'

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them. We saw evidence to show people and their relatives or advocates had been involved in writing and agreeing their care plans. Specialist dietary and healthcare needs had been identified in care plans where required. People we spoke with and their relatives told us they received the support needed. People's care was subject to review so staff could ensure their needs were being met effectively.

Is the service responsive?

Staff we spoke with demonstrated they would report any concerns to the registered manager and were confident these would be addressed. This was confirmed by a person who used the service telling us, 'If I don't like something I can always tell (the manager). She always listens to what I say.' A relative told us, 'They (the staff) always let me know what's happening and keep me informed.'

We saw there was an effective complaints procedure in place. We found the provider responded appropriately if a person's care and support needs changed, for example, if they became unwell.

Is the service well led?

People we spoke with, staff and relatives were positive about the management of the service. Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and other senior staff.

We found monitoring and reviews of the service were carried out regularly and highlighted actions were completed in a timely manner.

We found the home had carried out assessments before people received any care or treatment. They were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes .We found that where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

There were processes in place to protect people who used the service from harm. The staff were trained to recognise the signs of abuse and to report concerns in accordance with the home's procedures.

People were cared for, and supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

There was an effective complaints system available.