We considered the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We spoke with three people using the service, looked at care records of two people in detail and a selection of other records in relation to other people's care. We also spoke to two staff on duty, looked at two staff files and spoke with the registered manager. This is a summary of what we found:
Is the service safe?
Before people were admitted to the home arrangements were in place to make sure they would be safe in the environment and there was enough skilled and qualified staff to meet their needs.
We found people had been given a contract of residence outlining the terms and conditions of residency therefore protecting their legal rights.
The manager and staff had been trained and understood their obligation to apply the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This is a legal framework designed to protect the best interests of people who are unable to make their own decisions.
Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Staff had been made aware of who may be at risk of self-harm, self-neglect, and exploitation, and they had a plan of care to deal with this.
People's care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way to protect them from any unlawful discrimination within the home and wider community. Restrictions imposed on people for their welfare and safety as required under sections of the mental health act was managed well.
Staff were trained in emergency procedures such as fire and first aid. Other emergency situations were planned for such as responding to a missing person alert.
Care had been taken to make sure people were kept safe by only employing people who had proven good character records.
People were supported to manage their own finances. Strict financial procedures were followed to prevent any misuse of people's monies.
We found the provider had taken steps to make sure health and safety checks were carried out at regular intervals and all essential services such as fire, gas, electric and water were certified as being safe. Safety locks were fitted as standard on bedroom doors.
Systems were in place to make sure the provider continually checked the service was safe. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
Is the service caring?
People told us they were happy with the care they received and the staff team. They said, 'We go on holiday with the staff. We are going to Blackpool in July." And 'Staff help me with my bath. I can manage most things myself but I have trouble getting in and out of the bath."
People said they were treated with respect 'I think staff treat me with respect. No-one goes in my room unless I say so. I don't go in other people's rooms either. We respect each other.'
We saw routines in the home were flexible and people were supported and encouraged to get involved in activities they enjoyed. 'The staff are very good. They don't talk down to us or shout at us.' And 'They don't make us go to bed when they say or do what they want us to do. We please ourselves. Sometimes I stay up late especially when I go out with my friends. They tell me to ring and let them know I am all right.'
Staff worked to care plans that were person centred, well written and sufficiently detailed on how best to meet individual needs. Daily records showed staff responded to people's needs as required day and night. Staff gave a good account of, and showed an understanding of, the varying needs of the different people we had discussed with them.
Within the constraints of the mental health act, where it applied, people were able to make some choices regarding their lifestyle. They had the opportunity and scope to express their wishes for daily living and social activity, and this was respected. This helped to make sure that they were supported in a way that did not inappropriately restrict their freedom.
Is the service responsive?
People were given plenty of opportunities to say what they wanted rom the service. They were involved in planning their care and support. Each person had a key worker who supported them in making decisions that were important to them. Care plans were regularly reviewed to make sure the level and type of support people had met with their needs and expectations. Professional help and support was sought from health and social care professionals when needed.
Activities were planned for and people were encouraged and supported to do the things they liked to do. Social and recreational activities were enjoyed and people had planned a summer holiday of their choice. Staff were available to accompany people where needed.
Residents' house meetings were held and people could say what they wanted and they felt listened to. A system was in place for receiving comments, compliments and complaints. People told us that they would know how to make a complaint, should they need to do so.
Is the service effective?
People told us they were happy with their care. They had their own preferred routines, likes and dislikes that the staff knew about. There were no institutional practices imposed on people and staff were flexible in their work to accommodate individual needs and preferences.
People's health and well-being was monitored and appropriate advice and support had been sought in response to changes in their condition. The service had good links with other health care professionals to make sure people received prompt, co-ordinated and effective care.
Staff worked to a key worker system to oversee people's care. Staff had been trained in dealing with mental health and other health related conditions people presented such as diabetes.
People told us they were consulted with and listened to. Quality monitoring was carried out.
Is the service well led?
The service had a registered manager responsible for the day to day management of the home. People told us the management of the service was very good. They said they were treated well. If they had any concerns they knew who they could talk to.
People were given the opportunity to meet new people who wanted to live in the home before they were admitted and had opportunities to be involved in staff recruitment.
Staff were clear about their role and responsibilities. They were given a job description and contract of employment. Staff were able to give their views and they were supervised well and had appraisals. Staff were encouraged to develop their skills and knowledge. Training was provided and staff were given opportunity to put their new skills into practice. Meetings were held for staff and residents.
There were systems in place to regularly assess and monitor how the home was managed and to monitor the quality of the service. Staff knew when to consult with health and social care professionals when required. Decisions about people's care and support was made by the appropriate staff at the appropriate level.
The service had achieved the Investors In People (IIP) award. This is an external accredited award for providers who strive for excellence, which recognises achievement and values people.