We carried out this inspection in response to concerns that we received about people's care and welfare. At a previous inspection in November 2013 we found improvements were needed in respect of management of medicines. The provider wrote to us and told us what actions they were going to take to improve. We looked to see what improvements had been made in this area.The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with six people using the service, three visitors, seven members of staff and the manager. We also looked at four records relating to people's care and other records related to the running of the service.
If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People told us they felt safe and secure.
The staff that we spoke to understood the procedures they needed to follow to ensure that people were safe. They were able to describe how they delivered care in a way that ensured risks were identified and responded to. The management were able to tell us different ways that people might experience abuse and the correct steps to take if they were concerned that abuse had taken place.
We looked at how the home managed medication and found that improvements had been made. This meant that medication administration was safe and people were protected from the unsafe use of medication.
We found that equipment was well maintained and regularly serviced and all health and safety records were up to date. These checks meant that people were not placed at unnecessary risk
We inspected the staff rotas which showed that there was sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs throughout the day. The staff rota reflected the number of staff we saw on duty. People received a consistent and safe level of support. A person told us that, 'The staff are lovely, they are there when you need them'. Some relatives told us, 'Normally seems to be plenty of staff around'.
Procedures for dealing with emergencies were in place and staff were able to describe these to us.
The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This is legislation that makes provision relating to persons who lack capacity, and how decisions should be made in their best interests when they do so. At the time of our inspection no applications had been made. Although the management were able to describe the circumstances when an application should be made and knew how to submit one.
Is the service effective?
People all had an individual care plan which set out their care needs. People told us they received the care that they needed and some told us they had been involved in the assessment of their health and care needs, which in turn contributed to developing their care plan. Assessments included needs for any equipment, mobility aids and specialist dietary requirements. People had access to a range of health care professionals some of which visited the home. We saw that the manager made arrangements to ensure that healthcare appointments we made at times that were convenient for people.
This meant that people were sure that their individual care needs and wishes were known and planned for and that they had the equipment they needed to meet their individual needs.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, 'The staff are very nice and they are clean and tidy, and the cook comes round to offer us a choice of meals'. A visitor said, 'Since I've been coming here the care (provided by staff) has improved immensely, X has really benefited from looked after and has put weight on'.
Staff were aware of people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs. Our observations of the care provided, discussions with people and records we looked at told us that individual wishes for care and support were taken into account and respected.
Is the service responsive?
We heard from some people that they were able to pursue individual activities. We also saw that there were some impromptu activities such as a sing a long during the inspection. We saw that staff recorded activities people participated in but visitors told us that they did not see many activities when they were there.
The manager told us how they planned to increase the hours of the home's activity co-ordinator and they had made activity boxes available for use with individual people, for example items relating to reminiscence. This showed that the manager was aware that this was an area that needed further development so as to improve stimulation for people.
People told us they were kept informed when their care needs changed. One relative had stated in a survey form returned to the home, 'The staff are very helpful and courteous, with smiling faces and information when you ask and talk to them'.
People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. Two people said that they had made a complaint and both were satisfied with the outcomes. The manager told us that they took complaints seriously and looked into them quickly and we heard from some people that staff were responsive to matters they raised.
The registered manager told us the service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. We heard from other agencies that they had found the service to be responsive to suggestions they had made to the manager.
Is the service well-led?
The home's owner was also the registered manager. Senior staff were trained appropriately to undertake the roles that they were delegated as part of the management team. This meant that senior staff had key areas of responsibility, for example care planning and medication which helped with management oversight.
The home had a system to assure the quality service they provided. The way the service was run had been regularly reviewed and people's views were sought. Prompt action had been taken to improve the service or put right any shortfalls they had found, or those we identified on the day of our inspection.
Information from the analysis of accidents and incidents had been used to identify changes and improvements to minimise the risk of them happening again.
People's personal care records, and other records kept in the home, were accurate and complete. We only found one risk assessment that was inaccurate and this was updated before we completed the inspection.