Some people living in the home were not willing or able to tell us clearly and in detail about their care. For this reason, we observed what was going on and how staff were supporting people. This helped answer our five questions; 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.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary, please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People were treated with respect and dignity by staff. People told us that they liked the staff who worked with them. We observed that people showed no reluctance in seeking out staff to assist them.
Improvements had been made to the way that medicines were managed so that these were safely recorded and administered.
Systems were in place to ensure that the safety of the service was monitored. There were procedures in place for dealing with emergencies. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve.
The home had procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). No applications had been made regarding deprivation of liberty for anyone living at the home. However, the manager gave us an example of how they had involved the local authority DoLS team for advice. This meant people would be safeguarded as required. We saw that the contact details for this team were displayed in the office. We discussed a recent legal decision regarding DoLS with the manager so that further advice could be taken if required.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care were discussed with them. Specialist advice regarding mental health, behaviour, dietary needs, communication and swallowing difficulties had been sought where this was appropriate. The advice was incorporated into people's plans of care so that staff knew how to support people effectively.
It was clear from our observations and speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of people's care and support needs. Staff had received training to help them meet the needs of people living in the home. We asked people if they felt staff did their jobs properly and supported them well. They told us that they did.
Is the service caring?
We saw that people were supported by attentive staff. There was a lot of laughing and good humour. People told us they felt well treated by staff. Staff took time to engage people in their preferred activities within the home, such as making drinks and doing jigsaw puzzles. Following some increase in anxiety, one person was supported quietly and discreetly with staff reading a book to them in their room. We observed that staff respected people's privacy, knocking on bedroom doors and waiting for a response before they went in.
People's preferences and interests were recorded in their individual plans. Records showed that care was delivered to help meet these as people required.
Is the service responsive?
People were able to engage in activities inside and outside their home, with staff support as needed. People were also able to discuss how the home was being run at 'service user meetings'. Staff were able to give us examples of where people's needs had changed and how they were arranging for further advice in relation to their care.
Is the service well led?
The service had a quality assurance system so that shortfalls were identified and addressed promptly. This meant that the quality of the service could be improved where necessary.
Staff spoken with were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They told us how they were supported by staff meetings, training, supervision and appraisal to understand and carry out their roles. They said that things had improved with the new manager and that there was increased clarity about their roles within the home.