Archived: Station House

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse as staff were trained to recognise and respond to any signs of abuse. There were sufficient numbers staff to meet people’s needs in a safe way. The provider followed safe recruitment procedures to ensure that appropriate staff were employed. Risks to people were assessed and well managed. People’s medicines were safely managed and administered. There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk of the spread of infection.

The provider followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People were supported to eat well in line with their needs and preferences. People’s health and well-being was monitored and supported. People were cared for by staff who were supported and had the skills and training to meet their needs.

Staff interacted with people in a kind and respectful manner and they knew people well. People’s privacy was respected and staff supported people to maintain their dignity. People were offered choice and had access to an advocate if they needed one.

People were provided with opportunities for social activities and they were supported to maintain contact with their family and friends. People saw healthcare professionals when they needed. People could be confident that they received a service which met their needs and preferences. There were effective procedures in place to respond to any concerns or complaints. People's end of life wishes were being assessed.

There were effective management systems in place and there were systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided. People were supported by a team of staff who felt supported and valued.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

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

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

Is the service safe?

We met two of the three people who lived at Station House. One person was out on a planned activity with staff support. People who received a service were unable to share their views about the service verbally. We spent time observing staff interactions with people. We saw that people were relaxed and happy.

We found that staff were knowledgeable about the individual needs of the people they supported. They told us that people could express their needs and preferences and that staff recognised people's changing moods. They told us that they were able to offer effective support at all times. Health professionals told us that they were very satisfied with the service provided at the home. They told us that staff listened to suggestions for improvements and acted upon them.

We spoke with the advocate who supported the people who received a service. They told us that people's needs and wishes were considered in relation to all aspects of the way that people lived their lives. They told us that the manager and staff understood the role of an advocate and were supportive of their input.

Staff told us that they were well trained and supported. They said that they had the skills to meet people's individual needs safely.

We saw that risks were being continually assessed and records showed how risks could be reduced and eliminated.

Is the service effective?

We saw individual plans that reflected how people led full and active lives with the appropriate staff support. Staff told us that everyone had allocated one to one time to do activities of their choice. They also said that sometimes the three people who received a service enjoyed trips out together. We saw pictures that showed numerous activities and outings. We saw that activities were arranged in consultation with people and by knowing individual's likes and interests. Information seen in care plans supported this.

People's health and care needs were assessed and actions were taken to ensure that those needs were met. Staff worked with outside health and social care professionals as required. We saw how this joint working was documented in care plans for consistency. Staff told us how they had recently supported one person who received a service to attend for medical checks. This demonstrated how staff had worked hard to ensure that the person they supported got the best possible treatment.

Is the service caring?

We saw that staff on duty were kind and patient. They spoke positively about the people they supported. An official visitor to the home had reflected, 'Staff really do seem to go the extra mile for the residents'. We saw that staff had worked hard to support people to achieve their goals. We saw that staff had developed close working relationships with the people they supported.

We looked at care plans and saw that people's preferences, interests, aspirations and needs had been recorded.

Is the service responsive?

We saw how staff listened to people and acted in accordance with their wishes. We saw how the registered manager had worked closely with staff and health care professionals to ensure people remained in good health. The registered manager was in the process of developing questionnaires for people (living at the home and visiting) to complete about the quality of the service provided. We spoke with the independent advocate of the people who received a service. They told us that the service was responsive.

Is the service well-led?

We saw how the registered manager had started to implement weekly and monthly audits of the service provided. They told us that they had input from an external agency who carried out monthly monitoring visits. They told us that they received actions following these visits which they implemented.

The service was well led and the registered manager and senior staff were approachable and understanding of their roles and responsibilities. The service was able to respond to people's changing needs and they worked with outside agencies to ensure people received the best care. Health professionals spoke positively about the leadership and commitment of the registered manager.

The registered manager told us about changes they had planned to improve the quality of the service further. For example they were re writing care plans to make them more user friendly.

Staff shared examples of how they offered people choices in their daily lives and how they promoted their independence. We observed this during our inspection. We saw people were supported to attend health appointments to maintain their health and welfare. The manager agreed to review how people received their medication to ensure it was personalised.

We found there were enough staff on duty to meet people's individual needs. We saw staffing was planned in advance and that staffing levels were flexible dependent on people's needs and activities.

Information about how to complain was not readily accessible. However staff told us they would know if a person was unhappy and were confident in raising concerns on behalf of the people they supported.