Archived: Ethel Bailey Close and Oakglade

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions.

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service caring?

The care plans were developed with the involvement of the person who used the service and/or their relative/representative.

People's preferences, likes and dislikes had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's care plans.

Is the service responsive?

The views of the people who used the service and their relatives/representatives were sought by the provider. People we spoke with knew how to make a complaint if they needed to.

Is the service safe?

Changes to the environment had been made. Improvements had been made in the security of the connected building and additional smoke detectors had been installed as per the recommendation from the Senior Fire Safety Advisor for Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust.

Is the service effective?

Staff encouraged and supported people to make choices and decisions.

People's specific needs were taken into account and there was guidance and instructions for staff on how these should be met. People's care plans were reviewed regularly and any necessary changes were made. This meant people were receiving care that was appropriate to their needs.

Is the service well led?

The provider carried out regular audits to assess the quality of the service provided. This meant that the provider could ensure that the quality of the service was maintained.

We spoke with the area manager, team leader, support workers and five relatives. There were six people who had stayed overnight at the respite unit on the day of the inspection. Two of those people went home that morning and two people went out. We spoke to the two people receiving a service that were left and spoke to five relatives of people who used the service.

One person told us they liked their meal and we saw the other eat well and smile when interacted with.

The parents and relatives of people who used the service all told us that the respite unit was a valuable resource and one they felt comfortable with their relative staying overnight at. They also told us that the staff were good, had worked there many years and knew their relative's needs well.

The parents and relatives of people who used the service also all made very positive comments about the staff and care they provided. They said the staff were caring and kept them informed of any changes to their relative's health and that they were involved in care planning and reviews. They also told us they got feedback about quality issues raised and changes to the service. They had no complaints but knew how to make one if they needed, except two relatives who also said they had no complaints but that there could be more things to entertain people in the respite unit.

Our visit was unannounced and we found the building fresh and clean. We observed staff treating people with dignity and respect. For example, we saw staff were always patient and gave people as long as they needed to eat and not be rushed, whilst supporting other people by setting up their meal with adapted cutlery to promote their independence.

We found that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent. Where people were thought not to have capacity, this was established appropriately by assessing capacity to consent in each specific area under the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act, and then taking appropriate steps where necessary.

We saw that people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights and there were written procedures in place to plan for foreseeable emergencies. This meant that if an emergency situation did occur there would be procedures known to staff to mitigate any risks that may arise.

We found that people who used the service, staff and visitors were not always protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

We found that the health and safety of people was reviewed and audited and there was a Quality Assurance system in place to seek and record quality issues from people who used the service, their relatives and advocates, analyse the results, identify and record proposed action to improve quality and feed back to the people who used the service.