At the time of our inspection the registered manager was away on holiday. During this inspection we spoke with the deputy manager, three care staff, a domestic, three people who lived at the home (one of whom was largely being cared for in bed) and four relatives who were regular visitors.We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected.
This is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us.
If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Care plans were well organised and the information was clear.
We saw that there were risk assessments in place for mobility, nutrition and tissue viability. Where someone was assessed as being at high risk then control measures had been recorded to state how the risk would be minimised.
We saw there were robust systems in place to assess and check appropriate and safe care was being delivered. These included daily and monthly internal audits. These audits included medicines management and tissue viability.
The provider had appropriate security arrangements in place to protect people who lived at the service. We found that the entrance door was secure and visitors could only enter the building with the knowledge of the staff. People told us they felt safe and secure in the home.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff have been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.
We saw that medicines were handled appropriately by staff who had been adequately trained and who had access to regular updates. We found that the documentation associated with the giving of medicines showed that people received medication they needed when they needed it.
Is the service effective?
People told us the care they received met their needs. Relatives told us they had been involved in planning the care they received. Comments from people included, "I am happy here and feel very safe" and "I am content with my life and I am very fortunate to have found such a lovely place to live".
Staff we spoke with were clear about the needs of the people they supported and what they told us was reflected in people's care plans.
We spoke with staff who told us they felt well supported by the manager who ensured access to regular training and development.
Is the service caring?
We saw staff treated people with dignity and respect and maintained their privacy and dignity. We heard care staff speaking courteously and kindly with people, asking permission before helping to support them and explaining what was happening. We observed care staff supporting people where needed in a calm and unhurried manner.
We observed how staff interacted with people whilst medicines were administered. Staff were respectful when they spoke with people and enabled people to take their medicines in an unhurried manner.
During our visit we saw the atmosphere was calm and relaxed. People appeared comfortable and were well dressed and clean, which demonstrated staff took time to assist people with their personal care needs. This showed us staff treated people who lived at the home with compassion and respect and encouraged them to retain their independence wherever possible.
Is the service responsive?
Care and support was provided in accordance with people's preferences, interests and diverse needs. Records we looked at, discussion with staff and observations showed that people's wishes were respected and acted upon.
People had access to activities and we saw staff actively engaging in conversation with people. This meant the home was organised so that it met people's social and emotional care needs, in addition to their physical care needs.
Is the service well-led?
We found the service had an effective quality assurance system in place and any identified actions had led to improvements in the service that people received.
Decisions about care and treatment were made by the appropriate staff at the appropriate level. Staff said they felt the service was well-managed and the registered manager and nominated individual were approachable and enthusiastic. They said they had confidence that any issues brought to their attention were always dealt with properly and thoroughly.
We found that the provider was not delivering the frequency of staff supervision and appraisals as set out in its own policy. The deputy manager assured us they would bring this to the attention of the registered manager at their earliest opportunity.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff told us the leadership at the service was inclusive and their views were taken into consideration.