On the day of our inspection there were six people living at Sylvanhurst House on a permanent basis. We spoke with four of the people who used the service, two care workers, the deputy manager and the new registered manager. We also spoke with the operational director for the organisation. During the inspection we worked 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 we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service and staff told us.
Is the service safe?
The staff we spoke with understood the procedures they needed to follow to ensure that people were safe. They were able to describe the different ways that people might experience abuse and the correct steps to take if they were concerned that abuse had taken place.
The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
We saw that Sylvanhurst House was clean and well maintained.
Systems were in place to make sure managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents, incidents and complaints. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service continually improve.
Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. The provider could demonstrate that that the staff employed to work at the service were suitable and had the skills and experience needed to support the people living there.
Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people are protected.
Is the service effective?
People all had an individual care plan which set out their care needs. People told us they had been involved in the assessment of their health and care needs and we saw how they had contributed to developing their care plan.
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.
Is the service caring?
We saw staff always treated people with respect and dignity and people were supported to make informed decisions about how they lived their lives. One person told us 'The staff treat me well, I get on well with them'. Another person explained they had gone for a walk that morning and told us what they had chosen to eat for lunch.
Staff were aware of people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs. Our observation of the care provider, discussions with people and records we looked at told us that individual wishes for care and support were taken into account and respected.
Is the service responsive?
People told us they were able to participate in a range of activities both in the home and local community. One person told us 'We are going out to the caf' now' and another person said 'It's nice here I can go out when I want'. We saw how staff encouraged people to help clean their rooms, do their own laundry and how they assisted people to prepare and cook their own meals. One person told us 'I go shopping for my food so I can choose what I want but staff help me cook.'
People told us they had weekly residents meetings which gave them an opportunity to discuss issues about the service. We saw people were involved in the review of their care plans.
Is the service well led?
The home had a system to assure the quality of service they provided. The way the service was run had been regularly reviewed. Prompt action had been taken to improve the service or put right any shortfalls they had found.
Information from the analysis of resident's surveys had been used to identify any areas for improvement.
We saw changes and improvements had been made following incidents and accidents at the service to minimise the risk of them happening again.