Archived: Pinewood

Below is a summary of what we found. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service because the people had complex needs which meant they were not always able to tell us their experiences. During our inspection we spoke with one person using the service, interacted with another person using the service, spoke with five members of staff, reviewed two support plans and reviewed daily records in relation to three people using the service. We observed interactions between staff and people using the service.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

Risks to people's safety and welfare were identified and plans had been put in place to manage these.

Recruitment practice was robust, two references, a full employment history and a Disclosure and Barring (DBS) check were carried out before staff were employed.

There were arrangements in place for the safe administration and storage of medicines.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We found there were proper policies and procedures in place and relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. DoLS arrangements were in place and appropriate applications had been made.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and support plans were written to address those needs. We saw evidence that support plans had been effective in reducing self-injurious behaviour.

Where people lacked capacity to make decisions about their care, mental capacity assessments were carried out and documented. We found evidence that decisions in people's best interests had been documented. This meant that the service complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Is the service caring?

People using the service were able to communicate in a limited way. We observed staff interacting with people using the service in specific ways documented in their support plans. We communicated with two people using the service in two very different ways. Using communication techniques described in support plans we ascertained that the people using the service were happy and relaxed.

The service had systems in place identify and respond to feedback from people using the service and staff. The service also worked with people to incorporate positive risk taking into care planning in order to enhance the life of people using the service.

Is the service responsive?

The provider had responded to people's individual needs to develop care plans which met their specific needs. These were reviewed every two months to ensure they reflected people's current needs.

We saw that the provider had acted appropriately in response to an incident, incorporating a professional into the analysis of the incident and invoking positive changes as a result.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system in place which included regular audits which were carried out internally and by managers from other services operated by the same provider.

We looked around the home which was clean, comfortably furnished and free from unpleasant odours. The home had a self-contained bed sitting room with a small kitchenette and three bedrooms which were single occupancy with ensuite toilets and hand basins and one of the bedrooms also had an ensuite shower. There was also a shared bathroom and shower room which had been adapted to suit the individual's needs. We saw that bedrooms were personalised with music systems, TV's, DVD's, pictures and photo's. Some of the bedrooms also had sensory lighting.

We spoke with four staff including the manager and support coordinator. We spent time observing how staff interacted and supported people. We saw staff treated people in a sensitive, respectful and professional manner and involved individuals in the running of the home.

We found that people were supported and staff spent time assisting people and were aware of their needs. Staff were friendly, respectful and courteous when speaking with people. The care plans were detailed and reflected people's needs and staff said this was useful in informing their practices. People were supported to eat and drink and they were offered choices.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for the management of people's medicines. Equipments were in place to support people to maintain their mobility and independence. People were supported to be part of the local community and undertook community based activities including attending college. People had access to healthcare professionals and treatment as needed. There was a recruitment process that was followed and all necessary staff checks were carried out. There was an internal audit that looked at the service provision including health and safety at the home.