Archived: 60 Langley Road

Below is a summary of what we found. This is based on our observations during the inspection and discussion with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and management team. Please read the full report if you want to see the evidence supporting our summary.

Is the service safe?

People who lived at 60 Langley Road were cared for safely. Staff had the knowledge and training required to help them provide safe and appropriate care. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. People's needs had been assessed and kept under regular review. Any risks to providing people's care and support had been considered with guidelines in place for staff to follow.

There were policies and procedures in place to safeguard people from abuse including a staff whistle blowing policy. We viewed the staff training matrix which showed that all staff training was up to date. This ensured staff had the knowledge and skills to respond to any allegations of abuse appropriately.

Appropriate measures were in place to ensure that people's money was managed safely.

Is the service effective?

When we talked with two of the five people who used the service they were very happy with the support they received. We observed positive interactions between staff and people using the service. Staff had a good understanding of the assessed needs of people who lived in the home. Care plan documentation included details of what those needs were and how they were to be met. Each person had a health action plan folder in place to supplement the details within their care and support plans. These contained a health passport which provided details in relation to their health, social and care needs. Also included were details about their level of communication and comprehension and things that were important to them whilst providing care and support. This meant in the event of an emergency, such as hospitalisation, information about their health, personal and social care needs were readily available.

Is the service caring?

The atmosphere within the home was calm and relaxed. We saw positive interactions between the staff and people using the service. People were fully involved with their care and support planning and their support was given with their agreement and reflected their individual choices and preferences.

Is the service responsive?

People's care and support plans were individual to the person concerned and recorded their preferences, individual goals, likes and dislikes. The manager and staff engaged with them and respected their wishes. We saw staff acted promptly to any changes in their health and care needs when appropriate.

Is the service well led?

The provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service people received. People were invited to 'service user' meetings which were held on a monthly basis. People were able to talk about any issues concerning the home or about the services provided.

The provider had introduced a new self-audit tool to enable the home to assess and monitor the quality of service provision. This involved undertaking a number of audits on a monthly basis to gather information about the quality and safety of the service. Where any shortfalls were found, action plans were put into place to improve outcomes for those who used the service.

During our visit in August 2013, we had concerns with record keeping. This was because the provider had not ensured that people were protected against the risk of unsafe or inappropriate care through maintaining an accurate record in respect of each service user. However, during this visit we saw much improvement in this area and records were regularly reviewed and updated. This meant people could be confident their records were being maintained appropriately and did not place them at risk of inappropriate care and support.

We saw the care and support was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. Any risks in providing care and support had been assessed with guidelines in place for staff to follow. These included moving and handling assessments, falls and nutritional assessments.

People had access to healthcare professionals and specialist support to ensure they kept healthy and well. However, there were some inconsistencies in maintaining an accurate record in respect of each person who used the service.

There was a complaints procedure in place to ensure people could raise any concerns they had. People knew who to speak to if they had concerns.

Staff received appropriate professional development. We spoke with two members of staff who provided care to people. Each said they had received an induction and further training. This ensured they had the knowledge and skills to undertake their roles safely. Systems were in place to supervise staff and provide them with an annual appraisal of their work.

We saw risks relating to the person had been indentified and assessed. Risk assessments had been written for risks such as, falling, moving and handling, infection and likelihood of developing pressure damage.

We looked at three staff personnel files. We saw appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. Each file had evidence of enhanced Criminal Records Bureau disclosures, written evidence of references obtained and proof of identification. We noted application forms were completed, which showed full employment history and educational qualifications. This ensured people were looked after by staff that were of good character and had the appropriate qualification and skills to perform their duties.

There was a system in place to listen to any complaints people had. Records were kept of complaints received at the service and how they had been responded to. People we spoke with did not have any complaints about their care.