A single inspector carried out this visit. They considered all the evidence gathered under the outcomes inspected and used the information to answer the five questions we always ask; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?The detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.
Is the service safe?
Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Risk assessments had been carried out for each person and plans were put in place to minimise risks.
People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff had received training in preventing abuse. They could describe what might constitute abuse, the strategies in place for preventing abuse, and what steps they could take to escalate concerns.
People who used the service were only deprived of their liberty when this had been authorised by the Court of Protection, or by a Supervisory Body under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). No one at the service had applications submitted under these systems. However, the provider had a written DoLS policy and had supplied staff with training in the operation of the DoLS.
Appropriate checks were undertaken before new staff began work. For example, the service carried out Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and followed up on people's references. Checks of nurse's registration status with the Nursing and Midwifery Council were also carried out.
Is the service effective?
Various audits were carried out to ensure the service was providing care effectively and in a suitable environment. For example, the nurse manager carried out a check of the medicines administration procedures every three months.
Staff described strategies for obtaining verbal consent before they provided care. The care records showed people were asked to give their written consent appropriately. The provider acted in accordance with legal requirements where people did not have the capacity to consent.
Is the service caring?
We spoke with four people who were using the service. They were satisfied with the care. One person said, "It is quite good here. I get on well with the staff." Another person told us, "I can't fault the care. If there is something wrong then they leap into action."
We spoke with a relative of someone who was using the service. They were pleased with the care provided by the service. They told us, "I live close by and visit my [relative] at different times of the day. The staff are always good and responsive. It is a nice, friendly environment. I think it is fantastic."
Is the service responsive?
The people we spoke with told us staff responded promptly if they asked for help. We also examined how the service responded to complaints and what actions they took in response to accidents involving people who used the service. The service responded to concerns promptly and carried out investigations in relation to any accidents. Actions were taken to prevent accidents from happening again.
Is the service well led?
The provider had effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. This included obtaining feedback from people using the service, their relatives, and members of staff.
The provider had written policies, including those relating to safeguarding, whistleblowing and the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The provider involved staff in an induction process which included a review of these documents. Staff were also asked to complete mandatory training courses to keep their skills up to date.