The inspection team who carried out this inspection consisted of two inspectors. During the inspection, the team worked together to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us.
If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
We spoke with ten people who were using the service and asked if they felt safe living at the service. People told us that they did feel safe, one person said, 'Yes I do feel safe, I have a key to my room.' Another person said, 'Yes I have not had any problems. Staff check up on me to make sure I am alright.'
We saw that the provider had an appropriate policy in place in relation to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. Staff were aware of this policy and of their responsibility to protect people from the risk of abuse. The contact details of the local safeguarding team were available for staff and people using the service.
We observed the staff who were responsible for administering medication on the day of our inspection. We saw that medication was administered appropriately and in a timely manner. However people were not protected against the risks associated with medication, because the records did not always reflect the medication that had been given. People had not always received their medication as prescribed.
There were enough staff available to meet people's needs on the day of our visit. The provider explained that the staffing levels were due to increase shortly after our visit. We looked at future rotas which confirmed this increase in staffing levels.
Is the service effective?
People's needs were not always properly assessed and care was not always planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We looked at the care plans of six people who were using the service. A care plan describes a person's needs and gives guidance to staff in how to meet those needs. We saw that the care plans were not always person-centred and did not always provide adequate guidance to staff.
Staff had received an appropriate induction and a comprehensive range of training. Whilst supervision processes had not been fully embedded, staff had received supervision and felt supported by the provider.
Is the service caring?
We asked people if they felt staff treated them with dignity and respect. One person said, ''The staff are very good. They are kind and can't do enough for us.'' Another person told us, 'Staff know us and have a laugh with us. They are very kind.'
Is the service responsive?
We observed the support that people received during our inspection. There was a continual staff presence in the communal areas of the home. When people made requests for support in the communal areas these were responded to in a timely manner. However there was sometimes a delay in response when people pressed the call bell in their bedroom.
Is the service well-led?
People using the service told us that they would speak to the provider or staff if they had any concerns. However the provider had not formally asked people for their feedback about the quality of the service being provided. The provider did not have an effective system in place to monitor the quality of the service.