The inspection team who carried out this inspection consisted of an adult social care inspector and a pharmacy inspector. They visited the location and spoke with the registered manager, nominated individual for personal care and two members of staff. The pharmacy inspector also visited a person who uses the service in their home. We contacted two people who use the service, three relatives and three members of staff by telephone. We reviewed various records relating to the management of the service which included six people's care plans and medication records. We also viewed staff training records, quality monitoring records and the provider's statement of purpose. The inspectors gathered evidence against the outcomes we reviewed to help answer our five key 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. The summary describes what people who use the service, relatives and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.
Is the service safe?
Possible risks to people had been identified in their care plans and the appropriate action taken to manage those risks. These included risk of falls, moving and handling and managing emotional needs.
The provider had not protected people who use the service against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines. This was because they did not have suitable arrangements in place to ensure safe keeping, administration and recording of medicines.
We have asked the provider to take immediate action to meet the requirements of the law in relation to the management of medicines.
Is the service effective?
People's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We looked at six people's care records. The plans of care contained all the relevant information to enable staff to appropriately care for people.
People and relatives we spoke with told us they thought care workers were well trained. One relative said: 'I think they are very experienced.' We noted that supervision, appraisals and most mandatory training was up to date for staff. However, we found there was a risk that people would not be protected against the risks associated with the unsafe administration of medication because staff were not appropriately trained. We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements and meet the requirements of the law in relation to supporting workers.
Is the service caring?
We spoke with three people who use the service and three relatives. They were all complimentary about the care they or their family member received. One person said: 'I am very happy with the care they provide'. Another said: 'they seem so caring'.
Is the service responsive?
We saw care records and risk assessments had been recently reviewed and updated. If any changes to people's needs were identified these were made. Care plans were then updated and staff informed.
Staff confirmed that if they raised any concerns about people's care needs, managers would act on it. If required a review of care would be undertaken, and care plans updated accordingly.
Is the service well led?
People and relatives we spoke with confirmed they were regularly asked for their feedback about the service and it was acted on. The provider identified, assessed and managed risks relating to the health, welfare and safety of people who use the service and others, with the exception of those related to medication.
The provider's statement of purpose did not contain all of the information required by the regulation. They had not regularly reviewed or updated the statement of purpose. We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements and meet the requirements of the law in relation to their statement of purpose.
This report refers to the regulated activity of personal care only. The provider was not performing the regulated activity of nursing care at the time of our inspection.