A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was 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 people using the service, their relatives and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.
If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continuously improve.
The home had appropriate policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We also found that relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. This meant people would be safeguarded as required.
When people were identified as being at risk, their care plans showed the actions that would be required to manage these risks. These included the provision of specialist equipment such as pressure relieving mattresses, hoists and walking aids.
The home had safe systems in place to ensure people received their medication as prescribed; this included regular auditing by the home and the dispensing pharmacist. Staff were assessed for competency prior to administering medication and this was re assessed regularly.
There were sufficient care workers to respond to people's health and welfare needs, A person who used the service told us "I am always attended to promptly, there are always enough staff around. " Another person said "Staff are very busy but they do have time to spend with me, we never have to wait." However, one person did say they felt there was a shortage of staff but also commented that they were attended to and never had to wait when they pressed the call bell.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed and detailed care plans and risk assessments were in place. This helped to ensure that people's needs were met.
Systems were in place for the provider to monitor if the service being provided was effective to meet people's needs. Action was taken to ensure people remained happy with all aspects of the service they received.
Is the service caring?
People told us they were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff acted in a kind and respectful way. People looked well cared for and appeared at ease with staff. The home had a relaxed and comfortable atmosphere.
Is the service responsive?
People's needs were met in accordance with their wishes. We saw evidence of the service ensuring people were able to continue with interests and hobbies; for example assisting people to knit.
People we spoke with knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy.
People using the service, their relatives and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual survey. This enabled the manager to address any shortfalls or concerns.
Is the service well-led?
The service had a quality assurance system, and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better had been addressed promptly. As a result we could see that the quality of the service was continuously improving.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and the quality assurance systems in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service. They told us the manager was supportive and promoted positive team working.