The inspector carried out this inspection to answer our five questions: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, the staff who supported them and from looking at records.
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 the staff. People told us they felt safe. Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve.
The home had policies and procedures in relation to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) and one application had needed to be submitted in the last three months. The manager had a good understanding of when an application should be made and in how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.
People told us 'We get our medicine on time and when we need it', but we found that appropriate arrangements were not in place in relation to recording, handling and safely administering medicines to people who used the service.
The manager set the staff rotas. Records showed the manager had taken people's care needs into account when making decisions about the number of staff the service required; the particular qualifications, skills and experience staff would need and the layout of the building.
The home was designed to meet the needs of people who lived there and the provider ensured the environment was regularly maintained, safe and fit for purpose. The doorways to bedrooms, communal spaces and toilet/bathing facilities were wide enough for wheelchairs or people with walking frames to mobilise comfortably through them. People who used the service were pleased with the facilities offered by the service.
People were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment because the provider had ensured the equipment used in the service was serviced and maintained and service certificates were available for inspection.
We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to safe management of medicines.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs had been assessed and care plans were in place. There was some evidence of people being involved in assessments of their needs and planning of their care. People said they could discuss their care with the staff or manager and on the whole felt well supported and cared for.
People's needs were taken into account with signage and the layout of the service enabled people to move around freely and safely. The premises had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people with dementia and conditions relating to old age.
Our checks of the records and documents within the service showed that staff received training in safe working practices. Health and safety risk assessments were in place with regard to fire, moving and handling and daily activities of living.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. We spoke to five people about the care and support they received from staff. One person told us 'The staff are lovely, I have not had much of an appetite lately and the staff have been tempting me with lots of different snacks and drinks.' Another person said 'I am well looked after by the staff, they are very good to me and I am very comfortable in my bed.'
One visitor said 'My relative does not always recognise me. However, they enjoy a laugh and a joke with the staff and that lifts my spirits. X gets all the care and support they need, they eat well and I can relax knowing they are being looked after.'
Feedback from people who used the service, relatives and staff was obtained through the use of satisfaction questionnaires, meetings and one to one sessions. This information was usually analysed by the provider and where necessary action was taken to make changes or improvements to the service.
Is the service responsive?
Individuals who spoke with us during the inspection said they were involved in decisions about their care and were able to discuss their care and support needs with the staff. One visitor told us 'I know all about my relative's care file. The staff are always there to answer any questions about X's health and they discuss their care and treatment with me.'
People and relatives we spoke with said they were confident of using the complaints system if they needed to. They told us that they would speak to the staff or the manager about any issues and that action was taken quickly to resolve any problems.
Is the service well led?
The service had a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.
The service had a registered manager in post and staff told us they were clear about their role and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure people received a good quality of service at all times.