A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer the five key 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?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you would like to see the evidence that supports the summary, please read the full report.
At the time of our inspection on 15 and 16 September 2014, the provider was not carrying out the regulated activity 'Treatment of disease, disorder or injury' at this service. This regulated activity was therefore not assessed on this occasion.
We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. Some of the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not all able to tell us about their experiences. We observed interactions between staff and the people staying at the home and spoke with four people who were staying at the home. We also spoke with five other people's relatives, four professionals who have regular contact with the staff and the people who stay at the home, and five staff members.
Placements to the home were through the local authority, which provided people and their families with specific number of days/ nights. The person and their family then arranged with the staff to use the allocated number during the year. At the time of our inspection there were 40 people who were provided with respite care throughout the year.
Is the service safe?
People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. People, and their relatives, told us that they, or their family members, felt safe with the staff and trusted them.
Care was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. People's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans. The staff we spoke with clearly knew the people they were working with well and understood their care needs and preferences. However, we noted that one person's care plan did not record all the necessary information about the care and support they needed. Another person did not have a risk assessment for all the manoeuvres for which they required staff assistance. This meant there was a risk of unsafe or inappropriate care because accurate and appropriate records were not maintained.
People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Satisfactory recruitment checks had been obtained, and appropriate training given, prior to care workers providing care.
Is the service effective?
People's health, safety and welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment, or when they moved between different services. This was because the provider worked in co-operation with others. Visiting professionals provided us with positive feedback in relation to the care and support that people received from the staff at the home. One worker told us that staff always followed any guidance they put in place for people. They said, 'The staff always take on board what I say.'
Is the service caring?
The staff interactions with people that we saw were respectful and caring. People and their relatives told us that they were very happy with the care that they, or their family member, received. One person's relative told us, 'Staff do a brilliant job. They are very caring and supportive.' Another person's relative told us, 'The staff are pretty good. They display a great deal of care and affection. We know [our family member] enjoys coming here ....We've dropped in to see [them] here and [they] always seem happy. The staff do understand [my family member's] needs although these are quite complex.'
Is the service responsive?
We saw that the provider asked people, their relatives, and professionals involved with people's care, to complete annual feedback forms about the quality of the service provided. The majority of the feedback received was positive. Where areas for improvement had been identified, we saw that a senior member of staff had discussed this with the person completing the survey and action had been taken to make improvements to the service provided.
The staff we spoke with clearly knew the people they were working with well and understood their care needs and preferences.
Is the service well led?
A registered manager was in post at the service and had been so for several years. All of the staff we spoke with told us that they felt well supported by the senior team. We saw effective quality assurance systems were in place and concerns raised by people, staff and visitors were acted upon. We saw there were various audits in place to ensure that good standards were maintained. For example regular checks were made by senior staff that people's care plans had been updated.
We found that the provider was compliant with five of the six regulations that we assessed. We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements and meet the requirements of the law. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.