During the inspection we spoke with three people using the service and asked them about their experiences of living at the care home. We also spoke with two relatives. We observed the care that was given to people. We also spoke with three care staff, a maintenance staff member, the registered manager and the service manager for the provider. We looked at some of the records held in the service including the care records for four people.During the inspection we gathered information to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People using the service told us they felt safe. They told us they received good care. One person said, 'There's always somebody [staff] there.'
Relatives told us they felt their family members were safe. One relative said, 'I've never seen anything negative in the way they [staff] treat anybody.'
Staff told us they felt people using the service were safe. One staff member said, 'I think we've got a good care team.' Staff also told us they felt there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We saw a DoLS policy was in place. The manager also had an appropriate understanding of DoLS. However, two care staff we spoke with did not have an understanding of DoLS.
Is the service effective?
People using the service told us their needs were met. They told us staff provided them with choices and respected their decisions. We saw staff asked people whether they wanted assistance and did not act against their wishes.
Relatives told us they felt their family members received good care that met their needs. One relative said, 'I feel [family member's] needs are met here.'
We saw assessments had been completed and people had many care plans which set out their care needs. However, we found some care records regarding pressure area care did not contain appropriate information. Staff had not always acted in accordance with people's identified needs regarding pressure area care.
We saw that some people had not signed to record their agreement to information in their care records.
People using the service and relatives told us they felt staff were well trained and good at their jobs. One relative said, 'There's constantly training going on.'
Staff also told us they received enough training and could ask for more if needed. We found staff received training to provide appropriate and safe care.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. A person using the service said staff were, 'Very nice. They're most kind.'
Relatives told us staff were caring. One relative said, 'They're brilliant. The staff are excellent.'
We saw staff interacting with people. We saw they were very caring and very kind. We saw they communicated warmly with people as they supported them.
Is the service responsive?
Staff had a good understanding of people's care and support needs. They told us how they supported people to maintain their health and wellbeing and involved other agencies when appropriate. We found that the service arranged for people to access other services such as a community falls team and district nursing services.
Is the service well led?
People using the service told us they felt the service was good. They told us they felt listened to and could contribute their views. One person said, "She's [the manager is] very approachable.'
Staff told us they felt the service was well led.
We saw that residents and staff meetings took place.
We found that the provider had effective processes in place to regularly monitor the quality of the service. We saw audits were completed.
However, we found that the provider had not notified the Care Quality Commission about two incidents that affected people using the service which they were required to do by law.