April Park Care Home

Care plans and risk assessments had been regularly reviewed and updated to reflect any changes in people's needs and actions staff should take to minimise the risk of avoidable harm. However, we identified one person's risk had not been assessed correctly, which had the potential to impact on the care staff provided. Staff worked with external professionals to reduce the risks they had identified. Records demonstrated that appropriate referrals had been made when people had experienced a deterioration in their health.

Systems and processes were not always effective in identifying potential risks or recording issues in people's care records. The manager carried out regular quality audits of the service and had created an action plan to address any areas for improvement. Positive relationships had been developed with people using the service, relatives and staff. People had regular opportunities to provide feedback through meetings and in person with the manager. The feedback received had been recognised and actioned.

People's dignity had not always been promoted. Relatives told us about issues they had encountered with the laundry. We raised this with the manager who told us they were going to introduce a new system to ensure people's clothes were not mislaid or lost. Care plans contained information about people's lifestyle choices and personal relationships, and the support staff provided to ensure people's individual needs were met.

The service had activities coordinators in place who provided a range of activities, we saw evidence of several activities people had recently participated in, displayed in the service and in the newsletters. People told us they enjoyed the activities on offer. Relatives told us they knew how to raise complaints or concerns, we reviewed the complaints the service had received, we found they had been investigated and actions had been taken to reduce the reoccurrence of the issue raised.

People were protected from the risk of abuse, staff understood how to report any concerns they had. Staff

were recruited safely, we received mixed opinions from relatives about the staffing levels. People received their medicines at the times they were prescribed or when they needed them, however we found medicine administration records did not consistently record the application site of a pain-relieving patch for one person. We were assured that appropriate infection, prevention and control measures were in place.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; however, the systems in the service did not support this practice.