When our inspector visited the service they addressed five questions; is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, their relatives, and the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
The service is safe. People felt safe because their rights and dignity were respected by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Members of staff understood their roles in safeguarding people from abuse. Members of staff understood the service's policy on the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
The service had risk management processes in place and staff supported people to take positive risks to promote their independence.
Recruitment processes were safe and thorough. People were supported by staff that had been checked with the Disclosure and Barring Service and whose references had been checked before they started work.
Processes and training was in place to ensure people received their medication safely.
Is the service is effective?
The service is effective. Where possible, people were involved in the assessment of their needs and care plans reflected their choices and preferences. Staff supported people to be as independent as possible.
People's identified needs were monitored regularly and effectively.
Is the service caring?
The service is caring. We observed people were cared for by staff who showed patience and encouragement.
Staff knew the people they cared for and understood their preferences and personal histories.
Policies and procedures were in place to ensure staff understood how to respect people's privacy and dignity.
People's families were encouraged to make their views known about their care and treatment and these views were respected.
Is the service responsive?
The service is responsive. Members of staff actively listened and acted on people's views and decisions. People were given the information at the time they needed it. People's capacity to make their own decisions was considered under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Concerns and complaints were encouraged. People were made aware of how to complain.
Is the service well led?
The service is well led. There were effective systems in place to continually review safeguarding concerns and people's levels of care.
The registered manager had systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service provided to people. Where gaps or shortcomings had been identified the registered manager took swift action to address the issues.
Members of staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff were motivated, well trained, supported, and open. They acted in caring way. The registered manager understood their responsibilities.
The service worked well with other agencies and external services to ensure people who used the service received care in a joined up way.
What people who used the service, and those that matter to them, said about the care and support they received:
Due to the complex needs of the people who used the service we were unable to gain some people's views. We therefore used a number of different methods to help us understand their experiences. This included observing how staff supported people, speaking with staff and checking records. People who used the service were only able to communicate with us in a limited way. When we asked people if they likes living in the home and felt safe, one person said, 'Yes' and another nodded their head.