People we spoke with and their relatives told us they were happy living at the home. They spoke positively about staff.People were involved in decisions about their care and support. Staff made appropriate referrals to other professionals and community services. We saw staff understood people's care and support needs, were kind and thoughtful towards them, and treated them with respect.
Care plans were individual to people and were reviewed regularly. This meant that information was accurate and up to date.
Medicines were only handled by people trained to do so. Good practices were in place for the handling and storage of medication.
We saw that adequate maintenance of the premises was not carried out to maintain the safety and suitability of the premises which breached the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations
The home regularly monitored the quality of the service. Audits were carried out to minimise the risks available to people and actions were put in place when needed, however we were not always sure if these had been addressed.
People and staff had access to forums where they could voice concerns or complaints which they had.
People and staff felt well supported at the home.
The inspection team who carried out this inspection consisted of three inspectors. During the inspection, the team worked together to answer five key questions which are outlined below.
Is the service safe?
Everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe and secure living at the home. Staff we spoke to understood the procedures which they needed to follow to ensure that people were safe.
Good systems were in place for medication. Staff were up to date with training and regular competency assessments were undertaken.
The security of the building was well maintained and people we spoke to told us that they felt safe living at the home. However we found that the maintenance checks needed to ensure the safety of the building we not up to date and as required by the Health and Social Care Act. This meant the provider could not demonstrate that people were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care because maintenance checks were not up to date. A compliance action has been set in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.
Procedures for dealing with emergencies were in place and staff were able to describe these to us. People had a copy of the fire evacuation procedure in their own rooms, however the people we spoke to were unsure of the fire evacuation procedure.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care home. Recent applications had needed to be submitted and proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand where an application should be made, and how to submit one.
Is the service effective?
People all had an individual care plans which set out their care needs. People we spoke with told us they had been involved in the assessment of their care needs and care planning.
It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of the people's care and support needs and that they knew them well.
People had access to a range of health professionals. People were escorted to appointments as needed.
Is the service caring?
People were treated with dignity and respect and were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people.
Everyone we spoke with during our inspection expressed satisfaction with the care and support which they received.
Is the service responsive?
We saw the home provided a range activities both inside the home and out in the community. The home had access to their own transport which meant that people had enjoyed many days outside.
Relatives told us they were able to visit when they wanted to and could take people out into the community. This meant people were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends.
Staff responded quickly when people's needs changed and ensured that referrals to appropriate health professionals were carried out when needed.
People told us that they knew how to make a complaint if they needed to.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received the most appropriate care and support for their needs.
The home had a system in place to assure the quality of the service they provided. The way the service was run was regularly reviewed. Actions were put in place when needed, however we were unable to see if these actions had been addressed.
Staff were dedicated to the home and had a good understanding of the ethos of the home. Staff were very clear about their roles and responsibilities and were very positive about the team they worked in.
What people said
During the inspection we spoke with five people, two relatives, one visitor and nine staff. People who were able to express their views told us that they were satisfied with the care and support they received.
People we spoke with told us, 'The care couldn't be better. The staff bend over backwards for you. I am really grateful,' and 'It's like a big happy family. The staff are really good and I believe this is the best place in town.
Relatives we spoke we told us, 'We are pleased with the treatment our relative is getting here' and 'Staff are nice.' One person and their relative told us, 'The staff are good. I get very well looked after. They are nice.' and 'I am absolutely happy with the care I receive.'
A visitor told us, 'The staff are always busy and always on the move. I have no concerns about the home.' One staff member told us, 'It's a good place to work.' Another told us, 'We give people lots of choice.'
One staff member told us, 'It's a good place to work.'