We visited the home to check if the provider had made any of the required improvements to the issues we highlighted during our last inspection of the service completed on 29 January 2014.This summary is based on a review of the action plan sent to us in response to our last inspection, our observations during our visit, our discussions with people who used the service and the staff who supported them. We also spoke with people's visiting relatives and health and social care professionals.
During our inspection we looked at four care records and observed care being given by staff. We spoke with four people who used the service and four relatives who visited the service. We also spoke with the home owner and four staff members, two nurse assessors, a social worker and a dietician who visited the service during our inspection.
We considered the findings of our inspection to answer questions we always ask: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? This is a summary of what we found:
Is the service caring?
People and relatives we spoke with told us staff were respectful, kind and attentive.
Is the service responsive?
We saw people's individual care needs were assessed and met. This also included people's individual choices and preferences about how they wanted to be cared for at the home.
Is the service safe?
We found people were treated with respect and dignity by staff. People told us they felt safe living at the home. We saw safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.
Systems were in place to ensure the manager and staff learned from events such as complaints, concerns and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
The home had proper policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made. This meant people would be safeguarded as required.
Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse. People told us they felt safe living at the home. We saw safeguarding procedures were in place and that staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.
People were assisted to take their medicines. People were protected against the use of unlawful or excessive control or restraint because the provider had made suitable arrangements.
Is the service effective?
People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. One person we spoke with told us, "The manager and staff are always around to speak with if we have any worries."
A relative we spoke with said, 'There is information clearly set out showing how complaints procedures can be accessed. I don't think there have been any complaints about the home.'
We spoke with the manager who confirmed any concerns raised had been addressed straight away and found responses had been open and timely.
There were details available for people who lived in the home and their relatives should they need to contact an advocacy service so that they could access additional support.
People could therefore be assured that informal concerns were addressed and systems were in place to make sure more formal complaints are investigated in the right way.
Is the service well led?
The manager had a quality assurance system in place and records seen by us showed that shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was improving.
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.