An adult social care inspector carried out this inspection. As part of the inspection we spoke with six people who used the service, and a family member of one other. We also spoke with the manager and three members of staff. We reviewed the records relating to the management of the home which included six care records, five staff personnel records, policies and procedures, and minutes of meetings. Charnwood Country Residence is registered to provide accommodation for 22 people who require personal care. On the day of our visit there were 21 people using the service. The registered manager named on the front of this report was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. The current manager is in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.
Is the service safe?
People told us that they felt safe. Individual risk assessments were well completed and actions to minimise the risks identified were reflected in care plans. Service wide risk assessments, together with the actions to reduce those risks, were reviewed regularly.
Appropriate systems and processes were followed with regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff had received training in relation to this and were clear about their role and responsibilities.
The provider had systems and processes in place to ensure that medicines were obtained, administered and disposed of safely. This ensured that people were protected from the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.
Is the service effective?
People told us that they had consented for the care that was detailed in their care plan. This was documented in their care records. One person told us, 'The staff ask me if it is OK before they do any personal care.' There were systems and processes in place for making decisions in people's 'best interest' where they were unable to consent for themselves. This conformed to legal requirements.
People's needs were assessed and care plans developed. People told us that they had been involved in developing their care plan. Care plans reflected both the needs and wishes of people. Staff had a good knowledge of people's care needs
Staff had access to a range of relevant training to meet the needs of the people they cared for. Policies and procedures were appropriate, up to date, and reflected current research and guidance.
Is the service caring?
People told us that the staff were kind and compassionate. One person told us, 'The staff are very kind and caring.' Another told us that, 'The staff care about how I feel and make sure I am happy.' We observed staff treating people in a friendly and caring way. People told us that the staff had time to support them to attend activities, to go out or just to chat. One person told us, 'Nothing is too much trouble.'
Is the service responsive?
An annual customer satisfaction survey was undertaken. An analysis of the results of this survey was shared with people who used the service, their families and the staff at Charnwood. There was an action plan to address the minor issues raised in the survey. People who had raised specific issues had received an individual response from the proprietor.
People who used the service and staff were clear about the complaints process. People told us they were confident that any issue raised, or complaint made, would be thoroughly investigated and acted upon. A family member told us that, 'Whenever I raise an issue it is always dealt with immediately.'
People had access to a wide range of activities. A list of arranged activities was circulated weekly. A member of staff was employed to coordinate the activities. People told us that the activities were interesting and varied.
Is the service well-led?
Staff we spoke with told us they felt well supported by their manager. Staff said they were able to raise issues with their manager at any time and were confident they would be acted upon. Staff had opportunities to raise and discuss issues at staff meetings and at supervision sessions.
Staff had received training about reporting poor practice and 'whistle blowing'. Staff were confident about how to escalate concerns should the need arise.
Audits were undertaken and the results used to improve the service. Action plans clearly identified who was responsible for implementing any change required.