We carried out this unannounced inspection of Ar- Lyn on 28 July 2016. Ar- Lyn provides residential care for up to 13 older people. On the day of the inspection there were 13 people using the service. The service was last inspected in June 2015. At that inspection we found there were breaches of regulations. This was because the way medicines were being stored and recorded did not ensure people were protected. Hazardous cleaning products were being stored in areas of the service where people had access and were not being protected from potential harm. There was not an effective system to monitor and mitigate risks when auditing medicines and equipment servicing certificate. At this inspection we found improvements had been made in these areas and the service was now meeting the relevant requirements’.The service does not have a condition to have a registered manager as the registered provider manages the service on a day to day basis. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
On the day of the inspection visit there was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the service. We observed people had a good relationship with staff and supported people in a caring and respectful way. People were being cared for by competent and experienced staff. A family member told us, “This has been a really good place for (person’s name) to live. I don’t know what I would do without them. The staff are wonderful.”
The service had taken action to improve how it stored and recorded medicines. There were now safe arrangements for the management, storage and administration of medicines. It was clear from the medicine records that people received their medicines as prescribed. Where hazardous items had been stored in open and accessible areas they were now kept in safe and secure lockable facilities.
Checks had been made and were in date for the maintenance and servicing of gas, electric and fire systems. All other equipment used by the service to support people were well maintained and regularly serviced as per equipment guidance.
Staff understood the needs of people they supported, so they could respond to them effectively. They told us they felt supported and had the resources they needed to carry out their role. Comments included, “(Providers name) are always around and if we need any more support they are there for us” and “Having worked here for a long time I can say for sure we (staff) get all the support we need. It is run for the benefit of residents”.
Staff supported people to be involved in and make decisions about their daily lives. There were systems in place to act in accordance with legal requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This was to protect people and uphold people’s rights where they faced restrictions due to lack of mental capacity.
People were able to take part in a range of activities of their choice. On the day of the inspection visit people were enjoying listening to music, reading, knitting and generally speaking with each other. Where people wanted to stay in their rooms this was respected by staff. There were regular entertainers visiting the service as well as garden party events and birthdays were always celebrated.
There were safe recruitment procedures to show staff were suitable and safe to work in a care environment, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. The recruitment process identified applicants had the appropriate skills and knowledge needed to provide care to meet people’s needs.
People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff had received training to help them identify possible signs of abuse and knew what action they should take. Staff told us they supported people in a way that kept people safe.
Staff were supported by a system of induction training and completing care certificate standards to demonstrate they were proficient in the caring role. Other training was available to staff however most staff required updating of moving and handling training. The provider was actively seeking a suitable course for them to achieve this.
Staff meetings and regular daily updates were used to share information about operational issues.
People told us they knew how to complain and would be happy to speak with the provider if they had any concerns. No concerns had been reported since the previous inspection.
There were a variety of methods in use to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included a satisfaction survey for people and their relatives. The most recent survey showed there was overall satisfaction with the service.
People using the service and visitors all described the management of the service as open and approachable and thought people received good care and support. Relatives told us, “We chose this home because we knew it was local and everybody knows everybody else including the manager and staff. That’s what we liked” and “Very good all round.”