This inspection was carried out by an adult social care inspector. At the time of inspection 49 people were living in the home. The purpose of our inspection was to answer these key 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 using 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?
Risk assessments were in place to keep people safe.
We saw that risk assessments were specific to people's needs and used to plan the care and support that people required. For example, we saw a risk assessment for moving and handling a person with mobility needs. This had been reviewed monthly and the level of risk had been increased over time from low risk to high risk, as the person's level of mobility deteriorated. This meant that risk to people's safety and wellbeing were effectively managed.
We saw the policies and procedures file which included procedures for maintenance. These also included routine repairs, portable appliance testing (PAT), temperature measuring and building maintenance.
People who used the service told us they were happy and that staff were always available when they needed assistance or support. We observed that staff attended to people in an unhurried manner.
One person told us 'staff are always there when I need them'. One relative told us 'we don't feel that there is shortage of staff in the home. There is continuity of care'. Another relative told us 'staff are always happy and we are happy'.
This meant that there were enough staff who knew the needs of the people who used the service and that people could expect same staff to always care for them.
Is the service effective?
We saw staff training records which set out what required training had been completed by staff as well as other training relevant to their roles. This included moving and handling, safeguarding, food hygiene, fire safety, first aid, dementia awareness and health and safety. The record also highlighted when refresher training was due. We saw that 33 staff had achieved National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) at different levels. For example six care staff had achieved NVQ level 3.This meant that staff were able to take part in learning and development that was relevant and appropriate to their role.
We saw that a plan was in place for each aspect of people's care. For instance one persons' plan described the difficulties they had due to their dementia. The care plan provided guidance for staff about the approach staff should take to engage the person, such as talking to them, reassuring them, before supporting them with personal care or other tasks. Staff we spoke with told us this made the person calmer and reduced agitation. This meant that care was provided in a safe manner to meet people's needs.
Is the service caring?
We saw staff assisted people with their care needs in a sensitive and supportive manner. For example, two staff members went quickly to support a person who needed help with personal care before they were assisted with their lunch. One person who used the service told us 'staff are kind and caring. I am happy with care here'.
We observed how people were supported at lunch time. We saw that staff were caring in their approach and were attentive to people's needs. For example we saw staff helped those who required assistance and promoted the independence of those who could eat and drink themselves. One relative told us 'mum is so content. I am happy with her care here. Staff are so caring and kind'.
Is the service responsive?
We saw that all people who used the service were registered with a local GP. Records of GP visits, opticians, chiropodist visits and other specialist professionals were recorded in care plans.
We observed staff supported people and followed the recommendations of health care practitioners such tissue viability nurse and or consultants. For example we saw that where people had fragile skin the recommendations of the tissue viability nurse had been included in their care plans. One relative told us, "since my relative's came here their health has improved'. This demonstrated that the home promoted the health and welfare of the people who used the service.
People and their relatives we spoke with confirmed that they were aware of the complaints procedure and knew who to go to if they were unhappy with any aspect of the service. One person who used the service told us 'I am happy here I have no complaints'. One relative told us' I have not made any complaint and I have no complaint'.
Is the service well-led?
There were systems in place for gathering and monitoring information about the quality and safety of care, treatment and support in the home. This included visits by the provider representative, surveys to gather people's views and relatives and residents meetings. Where shortfall were identified action was taken.
We saw evidence that the manager with the involvement of staff carried out a number of audits. These included pressure sores, infection control, medication, and catering and personnel files.