We carried out this inspection visit because we did not have enough information to assess whether the service was compliant. We wanted to see what life was like for the people receiving care and support from the service. We also wanted to see whether the service had made any improvements since we last visited.We had also received concerns about the care and support provided to people who live in this home. These concerns had been raised by the local authority, which is also the service provider. At the time of our inspection visit the service was subject to a large scale investigation (LSI). This is where there are many concerns and where the local authority safeguarding team, along with other relevant professionals investigate these concerns. We had also received information of concerns from the local authority, following their quality monitoring visits. At the time of our visit the local authority had stopped new placements of people in this home.
The registered manager of the service had not been on duty for several weeks and was on long term sick leave. In her absence a temporary manager had been appointed to oversee the general management of the service. The service had also placed a manager known as the "staffordshire cares manager" to work alongside the acting manager.
The service had provided the safeguarding team with an action plan of how they intended to make improvements. We had also received an updated copy of this action plan.
During this inspection visit we looked at outcome four (care and welfare), outcome seven (safeguarding people), outcome nine (medication), outcome fourteen (supporting and training staff) and outcome sixteen (quality monitoring).
This visit was unannounced. This means that the service did not know that we were coming to inspect them.
People we spoke with were happy with the care and support they received at the home. People who lived in the home said that the staff were 'kind and helpful' and visitors felt that the service was meeting their relative's needs.
Plans of care were in place for each person but these were not personalised enough and did not offer individual support.
There were systems in place to help keep people safe but staff needed more training and awareness about this. Risk assessments were in place for each person but these had not always been followed through and put into practice.
The service had procedures in place for the administration of medication but people had not always received their medication as prescribed.
The service had made recent improvements to the cleanliness and hygiene within the home and staff had access to personal protective equipment. This had helped to reduce the risk of cross infection.
Staff training and development had not been taking place regularly and staff had not received on going supervision and support. This had meant that staff were not equipped with the skills and expertise to offer best practice care and support.
The service had not been monitoring the quality of service provision and, as such, had not been identifying areas in need of improvement.
The service was in the process of making changes and improvements throughout all of the outcome areas and had made some headway with this. Further improvements were required, however, in order to ensure compliance in most of the outcomes we looked at.