Archived: Support for Living Limited - 21 Haymill Close

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

Assessments carried out by the home ensured that people’s needs were identified and met. Risks were assessed and reviewed regularly so that people’s individual needs could be met safely. People were involved in making decisions about their care and how they wanted to be cared for. Staff had undertaken training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Is the service effective?

Care records reflected people’s individual needs, choices and preferences. The staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual needs and the support they required.

Regular reviews of care had been carried out to ensure that the care provided was appropriate.

The staff were provided with the training and support that they needed to meet people's needs.

Is the service caring?

Throughout our inspection we observed people being treated with dignity and respect. One relative we spoke with told us the staff kept them informed about the condition of their family member. They also said "I feel that [relative] is safe". The healthcare professional we spoke with said "the staff take all my advice very seriously, they provide accurate information during the consultation and the people they look after are well cared for".

The staff spoke confidently about caring for people in a holistic and safe manner. We saw people were relaxed and interacted well with staff.

Is the service responsive?

People’s choices were taken into account and staff responded to what people wanted. People who used the service were provided with the opportunity to participate in activities which interested them.

People had access to health and social care professionals to meet their needs and the staff monitored their health and wellbeing. The healthcare professional we spoke with told us the staff monitored people's condition and implemented any advice and treatment they had prescribed.

Where people required equipment to maintain their safety and independence this was provided.

Is the service well led?

The staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. This helped to ensure that people were provided with a good quality service. They told us they were provided with support from the registered manager.

The provider had a system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service. However, this had not been effectively implemented.

The previous inspection visit on 17 November 2012 had found that there was insufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made to ensure that there were enough staff on duty which, enabled people using the service to access community and recreational activities. Staff told us that they were able to provide more person centred activities as a result.

We spent time observing how staff interacted and supported people. We saw staff treating people with respect and involving them in activities and conversation.

People's needs were assessed and care plans developed that ensured people's needs were met effectively. People's healthcare needs were monitored and met with the support of healthcare professionals. Both healthcare professionals we spoke with confirmed that staff worked well with them.

Suitable arrangements were in place for the management of people’s medicine needs. Two healthcare professionals we spoke with told us that staff were respectful when engaging with people. One of them said “they do a good job”.

There were appropriate systems for dealing with complaints and the environment was suitable to meet people's needs.

However, we identified that the staffing of the service meant that people could be at risk and could not always be involved in activities away from the service.