At the time of this inspection St. Catherine's was providing care and support to 33 people, some of whom had a diagnosis of dementia. Whilst the home comprised of two separate buildings, only the purpose built building that accommodated up to 34 people was in use.
We spoke with 8 people living at the home, 5 relatives and 1 visiting professional to obtain their views of the support provided. In addition, we spoke with the registered manager, the administrator, 2 qualified nurses, 2 care staff, the activities worker and a domestic staff about their roles and responsibilities.
We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.
Is the service safe?
People supported by the service, or their representatives told us they felt safe.
People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected.
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 continually improve.
We found that risk assessments had been undertaken to identify any potential risk and the actions required to manage the risk. This meant that people were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.
The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Staff had been provided with training in these subjects so that they were aware of important information to ensure people were safeguarded as required.
Policies and procedures were in place in relation to the safe management of medication. Staff that administered medication had been provided with training in the safe handling of medication. This meant that people's health and safety was promoted.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them and their representatives, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.
Staff were provided with training to ensure they had the skills to meet people's needs. Managers' were accessible to staff for advice and support. Staff were provided with formal individual supervision and appraisals at an appropriate frequency to ensure they were adequately supported and their performance was appraised.
Visitors confirmed that they were able to see people in private and that visiting times were flexible.
Is the service caring?
We asked people using the service and relatives for their opinions about the support provided. Feedback from people was positive, for example; 'they are very kind people', 'they are all right, I can't grumble at all', 'the staff are marvellous. I am a regular visitor and they (staff) always take time to chat to me. They really care here' and 'they (staff) are very good. I can't fault them'.
When speaking with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported and had a detailed knowledge of the person's interests, personality and support needs.
People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. A system was in place to ensure where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People regularly completed a range of activities in and outside the service, which helped to keep people involved with their local community.
People spoken with said they had never had to make a complaint but knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. We found that appropriate procedures were in place to respond to and record any complaints received. People could be assured that systems were in place to investigate complaints and take action as necessary.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.
The service had a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.