1 July 2014
During a routine inspection
' 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. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with the person who used the service and 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 caring?
The service is caring. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting the person who used the service. It was evident that a good rapport had been built between the person who used the service and staff.
Risk assessments and behaviour management plans ensured staff had guidance to support the person who used the service when they had behaviours that could be challenging to themselves, other people and the service.
The home had involved appropriate professionals in the planning and delivery of care.
The manager and staff were aware of The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS); this helped to ensure that the person who used the service was not deprived of their liberties unlawfully.
Preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with the wishes of the person who used the service.
' Is the service responsive?
The service is responsive. Staff knew the person they cared for and understood their preferences and personal histories.
It was evident that a range of health care professionals had been involved in the care and treatment of the person who used the service. The care files we saw contained information from district nurses, community nurses, physiotherapists, dentists and clinical psychologists.
We saw that the person's care needs were kept under review and care plans, risk assessments and support plans were updated periodically.
' Is the service safe?
The service is safe. Systems were in place to make sure that the registered manager and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns and investigations. This reduced the risks to the person who used the service and helped to ensure that the service continually improved.
Staff had completed training in how to safeguard vulnerable adults. This meant that the person who used the service was safeguarded as required.
The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly so the person who used the service was not put at unnecessary risk.
' Is the service effective?
The service is effective. The person who used the service was able to express their views about their health. They were involved in the assessment of their needs and care plans reflected their choices and preferences. Staff supported the person who used the service to be as independent as possible.
Health and care needs were assessed. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in the person's support plans where required.
' Is the service well led?
The service is well led. Quality assurance systems were in place and records we looked at showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly.
The provider consulted with the person who used the service about how the service was run and took account of their views.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. This helped to ensure that the person who used the service received a good quality service at all times.
What people who used the service and those that matter to them said about the care and support they received.
We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of the person who used the service, because the person who used the service had complex needs which meant they were not all able to tell us about their experiences in detail. We observed staff interacting with the person who used the service, we looked at support plans and other documents.