The inspection was carried out by one inspector who gathered evidence to help answer our five 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 detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.
Is the service safe?
Care and support was planned and delivered in a way which ensured people's safety and welfare both within the home and in the wider community. We saw any risks to providing people's care and support had been considered. Guidelines were in place to inform staff what measures were to be taken to manage the risk safely whilst maintaining people's independence.
People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. The manager confirmed they worked collaboratively with the local authority to safeguard and protect the welfare of people who used the service by reporting any concerns and attending any safeguarding meetings.
People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.
People told us they felt safe and knew who to speak to if they had concerns. The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) although no applications had needed to be submitted. Staff were provided with training on an annual basis. This provided them with the skills and knowledge so they understood when such an application should be made. We noted refresher training sessions had been booked to take place in June and July 2014.
Is the service effective?
People told us someone from the home had visited them to assess their health, care and social needs before they moved into the home. They told us they were involved in the process as well as family members. This enabled the home to access any equipment prior to them moving in and to write an initial care plan according to people's preferences and wishes.
Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions and consent about particular aspects of their care and support, suitable arrangements were in place. This was to ensure the service acted in accordance with legal requirements and appropriate consultation had taken place to ensure people's best interests had been taken into account.
People received co-ordinated care. We saw evidence in people's care plans which demonstrated people had been visited by their GP and other health care professionals and appropriate advice sought when required. Where there had been a change in people's care and treatment, their care plans had been updated accordingly. This showed staff worked jointly with other health care professionals to meet people's needs in the most appropriate way.
Is it caring?
People we spoke with told us they were consulted with about the care and support they were provided with and their views and choices were acted upon.
People told us they were happy with the care and support they received. One person told us ''I like living here...the staff look after me well.'' Another person told us ''I have been here six months and visited before I moved in. The staff are very kind, I can't complain about it at all. It is better than living at home on my own.''
Staff showed they had a good understanding of people's needs and knew them well. We observed staff were gentle and patient with people and provided assistance to those who required help. They were respectful when they spoke with people and did not hurry them but enabled them to answer at their own pace.
Is the service well led?
People we spoke with told us they were consulted with about the care and support they were provided with and their views and choices were acted upon. We were told their views were sought through regular resident and sponsor meetings, annual surveys and on a general day to day basis.
There were a range of audits and systems in place to monitor the quality of service. The results of the audits were then collated and where any shortfalls were found an action plan was put in place to address them. This ensured they had a continuous regular system to assess and monitor the service and make changes to improve outcomes for people who used the services.