We spoke with relatives and they told us that the service was very good and staff kept them informed of any issues or changes to their relative's health. They also said that they could see the improvements in the home over the last few weeks.
When people received care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people lacked capacity legal requirements were followed.
People's needs were assessed, however care and treatment was not always planned and delivered in line with their individual treatment plan. We were not able to speak to people who received a service, however we spent time observing people and interactions with staff. We found little or no positive interactions and staff were very busy.
Relatives we spoke with told us care was good, staff were kind and helpful although staff were always very busy.
One relative said, 'I have no complaints and the staff do a difficult job well.' Another relative said 'very kind staff, very happy here'.
There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection and the environment was well maintained. However there were still improvement works to be completed.
People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.
People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. Although we identified some areas that still required attention. These included floor coverings in toilets and bedrooms, mattresses requiring replacing and cupboards in the laundry needed repairing.
There was an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. There was a complaints policy that took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. However we found documentation in care plans and supporting documents was not always completed.
We also spoke with six relatives. They spoke very positively about the care and treatment their relative had received. They told us the staff clearly explained things and gave assistance when required maintaining people's dignity and treated people with respect. They also told us staff were approachable including the manager and listened to you and if you raised any issues they were dealt with.
Evidence showed people were not always protected from the risk of infection. This was because the environment was not well maintained and the standard of cleanliness was poor in some areas.
People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. All the required pre employment checks had been carried out.
The provider did not have an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. The audits lacked detail to be able to identify shortfalls.
Relatives told us they were involved in the decisions made about care and treatment for their family members. They were kept up to date by the staff with regard to any changes in care or concerns over health.
Relatives said the staff respected the wishes and choices made by people using the service or their representative and encouraged people using the service to be as independent as possible. Interactions with staff were positive and the staff treated people using the service as individuals.
'Staff are professional, friendly and the care given was very good'.
People who were eating in the dining room at midday told us
'The food is lovely'.
One relative spoke to us and said they were very satisfied with the quality of the meals.