A single inspector carried out this inspection. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, from speaking with four people who were using the service and three staff who supported them. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the service and to the support needs of people who were using the service. These included four support plans, daily support records and three staff files.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report. We used the evidence we collected during our inspection to answer five questions.
Is the service safe?
People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were clear and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.
People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected.
Staff knew about risk management plans and showed us examples where they had followed them. People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and were fully involved in decisions about their care and lives.
Staff we spoke with said they received induction training when they started in their roles. We saw records of induction training but did not see that staff had received training specific to supporting people with assessed mental health needs.
Staff told us that they received day to day line management support in their roles. However we did not find that all staff received regular and recorded supervision to support them in providing a caring and responsive service.
Is the service effective?
There was an advocacy service available if people requested it, this meant that when required people could access additional support.
People's health and care needs were assessed and they were involved in their plans of care.
People thought that their care plans were up to date and reflected their needs. Our review of records found this to be the case.
Is the service caring?
We spoke with people being supported by the service. We asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them. Feedback from people was positive, for example, 'The staff here are all nice to me and I go shopping with them.' 'The staff at Florence House are good and ask me if I'm ok.' 'I know about my care plan, I can look at this with staff and talk about what's in it'.
People using the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. If shortfalls or concerns were raised these would be taken on board and dealt with.
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. One person using the service told us, "If I'm worried about anything I talk to the staff and they try to sort it out for me." Another person said, "I know I can complain if I want to, I was given guidelines to tell me how to make a complaint but I have not needed to complain." A person using the service told us that they once made a complaint. They said that action was taken by the provider to their satisfaction. We found that people could be assured complaints would be investigated and action taken as necessary.
The service worked well with other agencies and services to try to make sure people received care in a coherent way.
Is the service well-led?
The service had a quality assurance system. Records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better had been taken note of and addressed. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a sound understanding of the aims and ideals of the service. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.