Archived: St Saviours Residential Home

We also looked at how the home co-ordinated and met people's care and welfare needs and whether records were accurate and fit for purpose following concerns raised by visiting health professionals.

At the time of the inspection there were 15 people who were living at St Saviours. One inspector visited the home and spent approximately seven hours there. We spoke with eight people using the service, three visitors, the registered manager who is also the provider and twelve staff. We also spoke with the nominated district nurse that provided support to people at the home to ask their views.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

The questions we asked on this visit were:

Is the service safe?

Is the service caring?

Is the service effective?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service safe?

The service was safe because people's personal records including medical records were accurate and fit for purpose. We looked at four people's personal care records and saw they had risk assessments completed and care plans and assessments which had been reviewed in a timely way.

The registered manager had ensured there were enough staff on duty with the appropriate qualifications, skills and experience required to ensure people's needs were met. Care staff we spoke with told us the staffing levels allowed them to meet people's needs. We care staff taking time to talk to people as well as complete tasks.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLS). Although no DoLS applications had been made, the registered manager was able to describe the circumstances when an application should be made and knew how to submit one.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring because we saw care staff had positive interactions with people. We saw staff approach people with respect and kindness. People were assisted in a manner that maintained their privacy and dignity.

There were opportunities for people to be engaged in activities. On the day of our inspection, we saw people enjoying ball games in the main lounge.

People living at the home and their visitors told us 'We can't fault the staff'. 'Absolutely fabulous, we have been very pleased with the care here'. "It is very friendly here' and 'Things have improved a lot, I am very happy'.

Is the service effective?

We found the service had been working effectively with local health professionals to ensure people living at the home were receiving safe coordinated care and treatment. The home had a designated district nurse who worked with the registered manager to deliver coordinated health care for people living at the home.

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive to people's health care needs. Staff sought advice from external health care professionals in a timely manner.

The registered manager had been responsive to people's needs. They had increased the staff numbers at the home. This was because the registered manager had a monitoring system which had assessed that people's needs had increased and therefore would require additional support.

This is a summary of what we found.

We considered our inspection findings to answer 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.

On the day of our inspection there were 16 people living at St Saviours.

The summary is based on our observations during the inspection which was carried out over two days. We spoke with eight people using the service, two visitors, the registered manager, and eight staff supporting them. We also spoke with two district nurses who were visiting the home to ask their views.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People are safe because there were systems in place to make sure that the registered manager and staff learn from complaints, concerns and investigations carried out by the home. People and visitors we spoke with told us they had not needed to make any formal complaints. Comments included 'I can always chat with the manager and am happy things would be sorted out' and "We have had nothing but praise for the home since we came here'.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. However we did find examples of equipment that had not been maintained and service regularly. This was putting people at risk of harm.

There were robust systems in place to ensure the home managed people's medication safely.

People were supported by competent staff. However we found that at times allocated staffing levels at the home were not always adequate to meet people's needs.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs) which applies to care homes. The registered manager told us they had not needed to submit any DoLs applications.

Is the service effective?

This is an effective service because people's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved with their care plans and monthly reviews. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Visitors we spoke with told us that they were very pleased with the home and had been kept involved and informed. Comments included, 'the care is 100%' and 'it is great here, staff are very caring' and 'I can only give the highest praise to the way x is taken care of'

Is the service caring?

People who lived at the home told us they felt safe and were happy with the support they received. People told us 'the staff are all lovely' and 'It is very good here, in particular the girls are very nice and patient'.

We spoke with staff who were able to tell us how they met people's care needs. We observed the support provided and spoke with the people who lived in the home. This gave us evidence that staff knew people well.

People were supported by staff who were understanding and sensitive to their needs. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people.

Is the service responsive?

We spoke with two healthcare professionals who told us that they had been working closely with the registered manager and had made several suggestions which had been acted upon.

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service co-ordinated by the registered manager and care staff. People living at the home regularly visited Exmouth sea front which is near to the home.

The home is in the process of setting up a friend's of St Saviour's group. This will enable people to be involved with their local community. On the day we saw that four people had an excursion out of the home to the local caf'.

Is the service well-led?

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. We saw that there were regular staff meetings. Staff told us 'I feel I can raise concerns' and 'I am able to contribute at meetings'.

People living at the home met with the manager informally on a regular basis. Visitors and other professionals involved with the service had completed a satisfaction survey in September 2013. However we saw that the information gathered had not been collated and circulated to people using the service. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

We spoke with three people who lived at the home during our visit and two relatives. We also spoke with six staff including the cook, three care workers, a cleaner and the manager.

We found that not all of the staff spoke English as a first language. None of the staff we spoke with had any problems communicating in English. All of the staff we spoke with could communicate effectively with people who lived at the home.

There were 11 people living at the home during our inspection. An additional two people were staying on a temporary basis for respite care. We saw there were three care workers on duty plus three other ancillary staff during our visit. Staff we spoke with told us that they had enough time to carry out all of their duties.

All of the people we spoke with were pleased with the care they received. One person told us 'I get looked after very well here'. A visiting relative told us 'The manager and staff are very kind. I always get informed of any changes in X's health'.

We found that there were enough staff to provide safe effective care. One person told us 'The staff spend time to talk with me'.

People told us that they were treated respectfully by care workers and that they were offered choices in relation to their activities at the home. One person said 'The carers are very kind and I find plenty to do here.'

We saw that care workers interacted with people in a relaxed, friendly and respectful manner. Care workers went at the pace of each individual and encouraged their independence. People who lived at the home and their relatives were positive about the care delivered. One person said 'I'm very happy here, there are brilliant staff here.'

Care workers were skilled and experienced and most had worked at the home for many years. Care workers had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and recognising abuse and knew how to report any concerns.

We saw evidence that appropriate background checks had been completed on staff. The identity, proof of address and references for all staff had been sought and confirmed prior to employment.

We looked at the quality assurance methods used to monitor the quality of care delivered. We saw that there were numerous systems in place to assess the risks and ensure safe delivery of care.