During our visit we spoke with six people who lived at the home and two relatives visiting at the time. The registered manager was on annual leave on the day of our inspection. We spoke with a deputy manager and three members of staff. The service manager also visited the home and spoke with us. We also spoke with a visiting GP, a local authority care manager, and the local safeguarding team.We used this inspection to answer our five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people who used the service and the staff told us.
Is the service safe?
The people we spoke with had no concerns about the support they received. People and their relatives told us about their satisfaction with the home and told us they felt safe. One person told us, 'I feel safe here. I'm not worried about anybody who lives here or the staff.' We saw that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. All of the care plans we looked at had assessment tools in place to assist staff in establishing the level of risk for people.
The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The home was working with a social worker on a DoLS application for one person. We saw there were suitable arrangements to ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse.
There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. The service had a business contingency plan to deal with any short or long term emergencies such as loss of electrical power or loss of gas supply. The home had a contingency plan should the home become uninhabitable and people could not return to the home after an evacuation.
Is the service effective?
Each person had a plan of care and support. These explained what the person could do for themselves and what support they needed from staff. Staff told us the care and support plans gave them the information they needed to provide the level of support people required. However, the home did not have effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the home's care planning and reviews.
We observed staff supporting people. The care staff we spoke with were aware of the needs and preferences of people they cared for, and how people wanted their care to be delivered. We saw staff offering advice and support, enabling people to make their own choices and decisions. One person told us, 'I feel well and I've gained weight. You can't fault the [staff] or the food.'
Is the service caring ?
We saw people being treated kindly and with dignity and respect. Care workers spent time chatting with people and responded promptly to people's request for assistance. Staff had a good understanding of people's needs. People described their satisfaction with the home. One person told us, "I like it here.' Another person said, 'I'm quite happy here.' A visiting GP told us, 'The people matter to the staff. They seem concerned about people.'
We heard staff speaking to people respectfully and staff using people's preferred form of address. All of the people we spoke with told us the staff' were kind and patient in their approach.
Is the service responsive?
Staff responded promptly to peoples' requests for assistance. People had regular reviews of the care and support they received. However, not all people's records were updated promptly.
We saw people were able to participate in a range of activities. Staff told us they encouraged and supported people to participate in activities to promote and maintain their well-being.
People who used the service were asked for their views about how the home was meeting people's needs, and any concerns or ways to improve the service were acted on.
Is the service well led?
The relatives of people who lived in the home told us they had regular contact with the home and said they could speak to a member of staff at any time. They told us they were kept informed about any issues which affected their relatives.
All of the staff and people we spoke with said they felt supported. We saw the home had systems to monitor and assess the quality of the service provided by the home. These included the provider conducting regular audits including health and safety, inspections of the home's equipment, and inspections of the property. However, people's care records were not always reviewed in accordance with the home's policy.
Staffing levels were assessed monthly by the registered manager. The provider also had a system in place to monitor staffing levels.