Prior to our inspection we received information from the local authority safeguarding team, who are responsible for investigating safeguarding concerns. This information told us that there were concerns regarding the safe management of medication in the service. As part of this inspection we assessed if people's medicines were being managed. We spoke with seven people who used the service. We also spoke with two staff members and the area manager. We looked at four people's care records. Other records viewed included staff training and supervision records, meeting minutes and medication administration records (MAR). 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;
Is the service safe?
When we arrived at the service a staff member asked to see our identification and asked us to sign in the visitor's book. This meant that the appropriate actions were taken to ensure that the people who used the service were protected from others who did not have the right to access their home.
People told us they felt safe living in the service and that they would speak with the staff if they had concerns. One person said, "I would tell the staff if something was wrong."
There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living in the service.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. While no applications had been submitted, staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. We saw that the staff were provided with training in safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and DoLS. This meant that staff were provided with the information that they needed to ensure that people were safeguarded.
During our inspection we found that records did not show that medicines were always being given to people as intended by prescribers. We noted some good information available about people's medicines but some medicine profiles were inaccurate. There was inadequate risk assessment for a person self-administering some of their medicines and there was a lack of records about the administration of medicines given hidden in food to a person that assured us their medicines were always being given in their best interests and appropriately. We noted that all care staff authorised to handle and administer people's medicines had received training but not all had been more recently assessed as competent to undertake medicine-related tasks. A compliance action has been set in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.
Is the service effective?
People told us that they were happy living in the service. One person said, "It is very good." Another person said, "We have fun, I like it here."
People's care records showed that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. However, there were shortfalls identified in the records. Even though the records were reviewed and updated, they were not done promptly when there had been a change in people's needs to ensure that staff were provided with up to date information about how people's needs were to be met. A compliance action has been set in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.
Staff had been provided with the training that they needed to meet the needs of the people who used the service.
Is the service caring?
We saw that the staff interacted with people living in the service in a caring, respectful and professional manner. People told us that the staff treated them with kindness and respect. One person said, "They (staff) check that I am ok." Another person said, "I like them (staff)."
Our observations and discussions with staff showed that the staff were knowledgeable about people's individual needs and how they were met. Staff offered people choices throughout our inspection, including what they ate and drink and what they did during the day. We saw that the staff listened and acted on what people said.
Is the service responsive?
People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. The home had its own adapted minibus, which helped to keep people involved with their local community. People were supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.
People told us that they knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. We saw that where people had raised concerns appropriate action had been taken to address them.
People's care records showed that where concerns about their wellbeing had been identified the staff had taken appropriate action to ensure that people were provided with the support they needed. This included seeking support and guidance from health care professionals, including a doctor and district nurse.
Is the service well-led?
The service had a quality assurance system and records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving. There was no registered manager in the service. The most current manager had recently left the service. The area manager advised that they undertook the day to day management of the service and that they had recently recruited a new manager.
Staff had not been provided with the supervision and appraisal that was identified in the service's own staff handbook. This meant that staff were not provided with the opportunity to discuss the way that they worked and to receive feedback on their work practice. A compliance action has been set in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.
Staff and the area manager told us about the proposed changes to the service, which was split into two, The Bungalow and The House. The plans were that The Bungalow would remain as a care home and The House would provide supported living by the provider's domiciliary care service.
People spoken with and the minutes of house meetings showed that they were consulted about the proposed changes in the service, asked for their views about the service they were provided with and that their comments were listened to and acted on.