Archived: Viera Gray House

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

During our visit we saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect. People told us that they felt safe using the service. We saw that there were robust safeguarding procedures that staff were trained to use and understood. Any areas of concern specific to individual people were recorded in the sample of four support plans we looked at.

There were systems that enabled the manager and staff to learn from events such as accidents, incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped service improvement.

The home had policies and procedures that worked in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Training was provided for relevant staff to understand when an assessment was required and application needed to be submitted. This meant that people were safeguarded.

The home was safe, clean and hygienic with well-maintained equipment that was regularly serviced. This meant people were not put at unnecessary risk.

People's care needs were taken into account within the staff rotas when making decisions regarding the required staff numbers, qualifications, skills and experience. This ensured that people's needs were met.

No staff were currently subject to disciplinary action and policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

The home assessed people's support needs with them and those that wished to, contributed to their support plans. Any individual specialist input required was identified in the support plans. The four support plans we saw contained evidence that people had contributed to them and they confirmed this when we spoke with them. People and their relatives told us "I'm bone idle but there is certainly enough to do if you want to" and "My [Relative] has been here three years and at first I thought we should do more for my [Relative[ at home, but I have been very pleasantly surprised with their needs very well met".

The layout of the service enabled people to move around freely and safely.

The visiting policy and visitors' book demonstrated that people were able to see their visitors in private and that visiting times were flexible. This was confirmed by visitors during our inspection.

Is the service caring?

We saw that people were supported by professional, kind, caring and attentive staff. The staff were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people. One person commented, "I can't think of anything negative'. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with this information.

People and their relatives completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

Is the service responsive?

People regularly completed a range of activities at home and within the local community. During our visit people were engaged in a number of individual and group activities. People's support plans identified how they were enabled to be involved in activities they had chosen and daily noted confirming they had taken part.

People and their relatives confirmed that any concerns raised during home meetings or at other times were addressed.

Is the service well-led?

We saw that the manager and staff listened to people's needs, opinions and acted upon them. One person said "The great morale in this place comes from the top down". The home worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care and support in a joined up way. This was demonstrated by the relationship the home had with community based health services such as GPs and district nurses.

Appropriate notifications to the Care Quality Commission were made.

The relatives we spoke with confirmed that they had been involved in the development and review of their relatives care plans. They felt that the staff kept them informed about their relatives care and responded quickly to any concerns.

We saw that the staff treated the people using the service with dignity and respect and were supportive and encouraged people to be as independent as possible.

The staff we spoke with felt the training they received was excellent, the managers were supportive and the regular supervision sessions were useful and helped them in their work. The relatives we spoke with felt the permanent staff had enough training to provide the care and support required. A relative said "There is a good mix of backgrounds and genders amongst the staff".

Relatives we spoke with said "It's my relative's home now and the staff treat them that way", "I always see the staff being affectionate and caring to my relative and other people at the home" and "I see the staff doing things with residents because they want to not just because they have to".

Members of staff said "I think this is a lovely home", "It's like a little family". A relative said "The staff are so sweet, they make you feel at ease and you can go and chat to them anytime".

A relative we spoke with said "The permanent staff are excellent" and "They manage to maintain a homely environment instead of it feeling like an institution".