In this report Susan Elizabeth Pope and Gemma Natalie Ridout-Bowden were not in post and not managing the regulatory activity at this location at the time of our inspection. Their names appear because they were still registered as managers of this service on our register at the time.We brought forward a scheduled inspection of Bethel House (the home). This was because following a number of notifications the home sent us we had concerns about how the home promoted people's skin care and managed pressure sores. We found the home managed this well. A visiting member of the local community nursing team told us the home always contacted the team for advice if they had concerns about the integrity of people's skin.
At the time of our visit 27 people were accommodated at the home. We spoke with eight of them in order to hear about their experiences of living at the home.
Due to their physical and/or mental frailty we were unable to speak with some people who lived at the home and consequently we used other methods to help us understand their experiences such as observation of daily life in the home and looking at records and other documents.
We spoke with three visiting relatives and two visiting healthcare professionals. This was to hear what they thought about standard of support people who lived at the home received.
We also spoke with three members of staff as well as the home's acting manager. This was in order to hear what they had to say about how the home functioned.
We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five 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.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.
Is the service caring?
The service was caring as the support and treatment people received was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure their safety and welfare and uphold their rights.
Is the service responsive?
The service was responsive as the home arranged for them to see healthcare professionals when they were unwell. We saw records that showed confirmed the home contacted GPs and the community nursing service if they were concerned about people's health needs.
People's needs were regularly and routinely reviewed. Where necessary the support people required was altered to meet their changed needs.
Is the service safe?
The service was safe as risks to people's welfare such as malnourishment and pressure sores were identified and plans were put in place to manage them.
The provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it from happening and people living at the home told us they felt safe.
People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.
Is the service effective?
The service was effective as people were asked for their consent before they received any care or treatment and their wishes were respected and where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.
The provider had arrangements in place that ensured staff were competent to use specialist equipment and such equipment was checked, serviced and if necessary repaired or replaced
Is the service well led?
The service was well led because the provider had an effective system in place to regularly check and monitor the quality of their service and also to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using it.