On the day of the inspection four people were living at the home. Although we met most people living at the home, no one was able to express their views about their experience in any detail. This was due to their learning disability. People using the service appeared happy in the home. One person was supported by a member of staff to listen to music of their choice. They told us they were happy living at the home. During the inspection we sampled people's care records and spoke with staff. They helped us to answer the five questions we always ask:This is a summary of what we found-
Is the service safe?
People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Care plans identified people's needs and were reviewed regularly. People were given choices and supported to make decisions themselves. Risk assessments were in place and control measures identified. This meant that people's needs were met and people were kept safe.
The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. New forms were being put in place to record people's ability to make decisions and record any best interest decisions that were made. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards. This meant that systems were in place to safeguard people as required.
The service was safe, clean and hygienic. We saw effective systems were in place to prevent and control the spread of infection. Regular audits were undertaken to identify areas for improvement. Cleaning schedules were in place and regular checks were made. Waste was segregated and disposed of appropriately. This meant that people were protected from the risk of cross infection.
Staff rota's were in place that showed there were usually sufficient staffing levels to meet people's assessed needs. However, occasionally some people's activities had been impacted by staff attending to other people's needs. Some staff had concerns about the level of staffing and the impact this occasionally had on some people. Shortages in staffing were covered through staff working additional shifts and bank staff. The registered manager was confident there were enough staff to keep people safe and to meet their needs. The registered manager told us that they operated an on call system for staff if they had concerns and needed assistance. This ensured that people were kept safe and their needs met.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed. Care plans provided sufficient information about specialist equipment required to promote people's independence safely. Most people did not always understand what a care plan was but expressed they were happy at the home.
People were able to move around the home freely and safely. The building and gardens were secure. Regular audits and checks took place. Issues identified were acted on. This meant the service had effective systems in place to identify improvements and continually meet people's needs.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. We saw people responded positively to staff. One person said 'It's alright here'. Another person said, 'Happy here'.
People's preferences, likes, dislikes and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. People were involved in their day to day care and were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them. People's birthdays were celebrated. We saw that people's diversity and individuality were promoted and respected
Is the service responsive?
We saw staff that responded quickly to meet people's needs and ensured people's safety was maintained. For example, we saw staff support people to have a drink when they wanted one. We also saw staff respond quickly when a person wanted to speak to a member of staff who was in the office. We saw that people were supported to express their views and these were acted on. People had the opportunity to engage in activities both in the home and within the community.
People were reminded about the complaints process but no complaints had recently been received. We saw the service had responded to recommendations made by external agencies.
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. Staff felt supported in their roles and felt their views were listened too.
The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. We saw feedback from professionals. One professional wrote, 'A real sense of calmness, generally a well-planned shift' This meant the quality of the service was continually improving.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. All staff felt the staff team supported each other. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.