We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask:Is the service caring?
Is the service responsive?
Is the service safe?
Is the service effective?
Is the service well led?
This is a summary of what we found.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.
Is the service safe?
The service had robust safeguarding procedures in place and staff had received appropriate training and understood how to safeguard people they supported.
Risks to people's safety and welfare were identified and plans had been put in place to manage them.
The registered manager took people's needs into account and ensured that care workers with the relevant knowledge, skills and experience were scheduled to care for people. This helped to ensure that people's needs were met.
Recruitment practice was robust, two references, a full employment history and a Disclosure and Barring (DBS) check were carried out before staff were employed. The provider put actions in place in order to identify staff with appropriate values and match them with people using the service.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed. Specialist dietary needs had been identified where required. People and their relatives told us they received the help and support they required.
Where people lacked capacity to make decisions about their care, mental capacity assessments were not carried out and documented. We did not find evidence that decisions made in people's best interests had been documented. This meant that the service did not comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Is the service caring?
We met with four people who used the service and spoke with one person and three relatives on the telephone. People who used the service were able to communicate with us in a limited way. The five people we spoke with were able to tell us that they were happy with their care and were offered choices. One person said 'I like all the staff.' Relatives gave positive feedback about the service. One person said '(Their relative) is happy, which is everything.' Another person said 'They look after (their relative) brilliantly.'
People using the service completed an annual satisfaction survey, which showed that people were happy with their care and liked the staff.
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
Relatives told us they had not made a formal complaint. Some had raised concerns verbally and they felt that these had been listened to and responded to. We saw that a recent complaint had been responded to appropriately, following investigation, within one month. Staff told us there were regular staff meetings and they were able to raise concerns openly during these meetings.
Is the service well-led?
The service had a quality assurance system in place which included regular audits which were carried out internally and by managers from other services operated by the same provider.
Records showed that support plans were updated regularly every three months and that a full review was undertaken annually.