Archived: Angel Care Home

We carried out the inspection with our five questions in mind; is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

We were concerned unauthorised access to the home was not monitored to make sure people were safe as we had been able to enter the building and no staff had been around upon our arrival. We found staff did not have a clear knowledge of the procedure to follow to ensure people were safeguarded.

Is the service caring?

Staff spoke with people in a patient, caring manner and there was evidence of good relationships between them. Where people were confined to bed, staff made regular checks to ensure their well-being and offered conversation, drinks or music to listen to. Staff we spoke with were happy in their work and said they enjoyed caring for people.

Is the service effective?

We spoke with six people and two visitors who came to see people living in the home. The visitors we spoke with told us they were happy with the standard of care provided. They said the staff were friendly and made people welcome. The people living in the home said they were happy and their needs were met.

Is the service responsive?

We saw people's wishes were respected with regard to their personal preferences. For example, one person said they liked to have a cigarette when they wanted to and another person said they enjoyed a glass of beer in the afternoon.

Staff told us if they had concerns about a person's health they would refer these to senior staff so that people received appropriate care and support.

The acting manager had taken steps to identify issues raised at the last inspection and to respond to reports from other agencies, such as the infection control team. We saw some improvements had been made where the previous inspection had identified concerns.

Is the service well led?

We found there were no suitable quality assurance measures in place so people's care and well-being could be monitored effectively. Risk assessments, policies and procedures were not up to date to give staff current information relevant to their role. Feedback was not obtained to monitor customer satisfaction with the service and it was not clear how people's complaints had been responded to.

Despite this positive feedback, we identified aspects of care which required improvement. We found some care plans were confusing and contained conflicting information. We identified that some residents had certain care needs but care plans were not always in place to meet those needs. Records did not appear tailored to individual residents but often contained general statements which were open to misinterpretation. The lack of clear and personal care records means there is a risk of care being delivered in a way which is inappropriate, or in a manner which is not safe.

We found concerns regarding the home's cleanliness. We found some bed frames were dusty, saw dirty linen, and dirt on the top of wardrobes. One of the communal toilets was heavily soiled, and the sink in the same room was dirty. A lack of adequate cleaning and hygiene means residents, staff and visitors are exposed to the risk of infection.

At the time of inspection, staffing levels were deemed appropriate. We found there was an appropriate recruitment process in place and a range of checks were carried out on applicants to check their suitability for working with vulnerable adults. We found that new staff were given an appropriate induction, and training, to prepare them for their work.