Archived: The Bell Memorial Home

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People who used the service told us they felt safe. A relative told us 'It's a real comfort to know that mum is safe and well cared for here.'

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The registered manager compiled the staff rotas, they took people's care needs into account when they made decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped ensure that people's needs were always met.

Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practices were identified and people were protected.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and, as far as practicable, they were involved in developing and reviewing their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. People and their relatives said that they had been involved in reviewing care plans and they reflected their current needs.

People's needs were taken into account with the accessible layout of the service, enabling people to move around freely and safely.

Visitors confirmed that they were able to see people in private and that visiting times were flexible.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. A person using the service told us, 'Everyone here is so kind and helpful ' I'm very satisfied.' Another person commented 'I've never had it so good.'

People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. One relative told us 'We are regularly involved in reviews and feel our views are listened to. The staff here have been wonderful and we really appreciate all they do.'

Is the service responsive?

People had the opportunity to take part in a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. The home had access to an adapted minibus, which helps to keep people involved with their local community. A care worker told us 'Even though it can be very busy here, we try and spend time with people and get to know them individually, so we can find out what their interests are and how they like to spend their day.'

We were told by the manager that the service had good systems in place to monitor its own standards of service delivery and to gain feedback from people using the service, their relatives and other stakeholders. As well as satisfaction questionnaires, the manager told us they operated an 'open door policy' so visitors to the home can discuss any issues they may have. People and their relatives, who we spoke with, knew how to make a complaint or raise any issue or concern that they might have. They were also confident that their concerns would be listened to and acted upon.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

People told us that they were happy in the home and said staff were kind and friendly. One person said "I feel well cared for here.' Another said 'It's absolutely fantastic here.' People also said that they were being looked after in a clean and safe environment.

We saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect. One person told us 'Staff always knock on the door before entering my room.'

People told us that staff understood their needs and provide appropriate care and support. One person told us "I get more care than I expected.' Another said 'They call it a care home but to me it feels like a home.'

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. One person said 'I like it here and I feel safe.'

We saw that people who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on.

We found one of the two issues identified at our last inspection in 04 December 2012 had been attended to. We found that the home's systems for addressing the care and welfare aspect of people who use the services, in particular the area of infection control, had not been adequately attended to. This put people who used the service at risk of infection, and cross infection.

People told us they were very happy in the home and everyone remarked on the kindness of the staff. We were told that people felt confident that any concerns were always quickly addressed. One person told us 'Nothing is too much trouble' for the staff.

People told us that staff understood their needs and provided appropriate care and support. We were told that staff were responsive when people asked for assistance and quickly dealt with any issues. One person told us "It depends on the time of day but the bell is usually answered quickly.'

We found care was recorded appropriately but potential risks to people's safety had not been monitored, assessed or updated in a timely manner.

There were not adequate systems in place to assess and monitor cleanliness and infection control in the home. There were areas of the home which were not clean, were poorly maintained and presented infection control hazards.