Archived: Smalley Hall Care Home

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

We observed people were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. One person living at the home told us, "The staff are nice here."

The provider was not fully ensuring risks to peoples' welfare and safety were reduced. Risks were not always identified promptly and appropriate action taken for the planning and delivering safe care. Enough staff were usually provided to meet people's care needs but the provider needed to ensure sufficient staff were available to cover for absences. Medication was mostly managed safely but was not always stored securely and records were not always completed. Gaps in records meant it was not clear whether people had received their medication as prescribed.

Appropriate arrangements were not always made if people could not make decisions about their care for themselves, for example due to dementia.

The home was clean and had sufficient systems in place to prevent the spread of infections.

Is the service effective?

We found people's needs were assessed and care records included information relating to people's care needs. However, records did not contain information about any diagnosed health conditions or disabilities. Some risks that could affect people had not been adequately assessed and managed as part of the care planning process. This meant that care had not fully met people's individual needs.

Is the service caring?

People told us they were happy with the care they received at the home. We observed that staff communicated well with people and people told us there was an effective organiser employed who provided a range of activities. Care planning did not always take account of people's wishes, preferences and routines to ensure staff could provide personalised care that met their needs.

Is the service responsive?

Systems were in place for obtaining people's views about the service provided. People told us they knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy but said they were not aware of the provider's complaints procedure. We saw action was not always taken when needed in response to people's care needs. An example was where incidents of aggression had occurred and where people were identified to be at risk of dehydration or poor nutrition.

Is the service well-led?

Checks and audits of aspects of safety and practice were in place at the home. Monitoring of people's diet and incidents that could affect them was not always adequate and action not always taken in response to identified risks such as falls and other incidents that could cause harm. Adequate training was provided for staff and this was monitored by the manager.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

The provider had effective recruitment and selection procedures in place and carried out relevant checks when they employ staff.

The provider had clear systems in place to obtain feedback from all persons involved in the service as well as auditing their own service. This showed that the provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided.