During our inspection we spoke with four people who used the service and two members of staff. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us and the records we looked at. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.This is a summary of what we found:
Is the service safe?
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. Staff knew about risk management plans and told us about how they had followed them. People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.
The provider ensured that staff rotas where planned so that people's care needs were taken into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped to ensure that people's needs were always met. People had their needs assessed before they began using the service.
Staff recruitment practice was safe and thorough. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.
The provider ensured that routine maintenance and safety checks were carried out on the premises and equipment. We saw that some redecoration was required in the corridors and downstairs toilet. The provider showed us written evidence that this work had been booked to take place 15 June 2014.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. Relevant policies and procedures were in place and the registered manager understood when an application should be made, and how to submit one.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed before they moved in. Each person had a care plan in place and this was evaluated at least monthly.
Staff received the training and support they required to do their job and to keep people safe.
Is the service caring?
We spoke with four people who used the service. We asked them for their opinion about the staff that supported them. Feedback from people was positive, for example; 'They are so kind to me'. 'The staff are very good'.
When speaking with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported. They were positive about their role and said they liked working at Northfield House. Care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. People told us they could speak with the staff at any time. 'Residents meetings' were held so that people who used the service could give their feedback about the service they received.
We saw that staff referred people to appropriate healthcare professionals such as GP's and community nurses as soon as this was required.
People who used the service told us that staff worked in a flexible way so that individual needs could be accommodated.
Is the service well led?
The provider had a quality assurance system, and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.
People who used the service praised the registered manager and told us they could speak with them about any issue or concern. One person told us how the registered manager had helped them to maintain as much independence as possible.