We found that the registered manager had left the home in June 2014 and a new manager was in place. We saw the new manager had applied to the Care Quality Commission in June 2014 for registration. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider.We spoke with six of the 19 people who lived at the home, the manager, two of the directors, five members of staff, two relatives of people living at the home and a visiting professional.
We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;
Is the service caring?
Is the service responsive?
Is the service safe?
Is the service effective?
Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people who used the service, their relatives and friends and the staff told us.
Is the service safe?
People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.
We saw systems were in place to help ensure managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve.
The home had policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant people were safeguarded.
The manager was responsible for arranging staff rotas and took people's care needs into account when making decisions about numbers, qualifications, skills and experience of staff required. This helped to ensure people's needs were met
Is the service effective?
There was an advocacy service available to people if needed. This meant people could access additional support when they required it.
Specialist dietary requirements, mobility, equipment and communication needs had been identified in care plans where necessary. People said they had been involved in the planning of their care and care plans reflected their current needs and wishes. One person told us; "They ask my opinion about everything, it makes me feel like I matter".
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff and were spoken to with dignity and respect. One person told us; "I am so happy here, everyone is so kind to me" and another person said, "I cannot fault this place, it's wonderful". We spoke to a visiting professional who told us, "From what I have seen, everyone appears to be very happy here".
People's preferences, interests and needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People had access to daily activities both inside and outside of the home.
People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. The complaints procedure was clearly displayed and easily accessible on the notice board in the hallway People we spoke with told us they had no complaints to make. We saw there was a complaints log, but there had been no entries since the last inspection. People told us if they had any issues they spoke with members of the staff team or the manager and things were dealt with immediately. This demonstrated to us that people were happy with the service they received. A comments log and suggestion box was clearly displayed in the hallway for people to use. We found only positive comments about the service had been made.
Is the service well led?
People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Comments and ideas were listened to and acted upon in a timely manner.
The service worked well with other agencies and services to help ensure people received their care in a cohesive manner.
The service had a quality assurance system and records showed notes for action were addressed promptly.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes which were in place. This helped to ensure people received a good quality service.