We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We spoke with 14 people using the service and a visitor. We also spoke with three staff, the registered manager and a representative of the provider. During this inspection we looked at outcomes relating to people's care and welfare, the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and the safety and suitability of the premises. We also looked at staff training and support and the home's quality assurance processes. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask; Is the service safe?
Is the service effective?
Is the service caring?
Is the service responsive?
Is the service well-led?
This is a summary of what we found-
Is it safe?
People were cared for in a safe manner. Care plans were clear and informative. The premises had been designed to ensure enough light, heat and space were available to people. Individual risks to people's health and welfare had been assessed and actions put in place to mitigate the risks. However, some risks, such as those associated with the security of the building and hazards in the grounds of the building, had not been assessed or mitigated.
Staff assisted people to move around the home safely. Changes to people's health and welfare were recorded and appropriate action was taken to ensure people received medical attention where necessary.
Staff had received training in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and were aware of the signs to look for if they suspected a person had been abused. Staff knew how to report suspected abuse. People told us they felt safe in the home and with staff. One person said, 'There is no reason to not feel safe'.
The manager was aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). No applications had been made under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) however, the manager knew the procedures to follow should this be necessary.
Is it effective?
Daily records of care showed people were cared for according to their care plan and assessed needs. Staff we spoke with were fully aware of people's care requirements and how to meet them. Staff training needs had been identified and these had been provided to enable staff to deliver individualised care.
People told us they received the care they required. One person said, 'They really take care of you here'. Another person said, 'I wouldn't change a thing'.
Is it caring?
We observed staff to be caring and kind to people living in the home. Communication with people was friendly and a jovial atmosphere was present in the home. Provision of sun protection, such as sun screen and hats, was available to people so they could enjoy the outside space safely during the recent hot weather. Activities were planned, with the input of people living in the home, and adapted games had been purchased to enable everyone to be involved should they wish. For example, large sized playing cards and board games meant people with poor eyesight could participate.
People told us staff were caring. One person said, 'They are very caring girls'. Another person told us, 'The staff couldn't do more for you'.
Is it responsive?
Systems were in place to ensure people's complaints and comments were acted on. Feedback was sought from staff, people using the service, and their relatives. This was acted on. For example, items for the garden had been purchased, and activities planned, in response to feedback from people. Staff told us the manager and deputy manager were open to suggestions for improvement, and support was always available to them. Comments and complaints were responded to according to the home's complaints policy, although the majority of people said they had no complaints at all.
An effective system was in place to ensure the prompt involvement of medical professionals in people's care when this was required.
Is it well-led?
Quality assurance systems were in place and these were used to ensure improvements were made to the service. These included a monthly inspection report which was sent to the provider. Actions were recorded and we saw these were completed in a timely manner. Staff were clear about the management structure. Staff supervisions were carried out regularly and staff told us they felt supported by the management.