Malvern House

At our last inspection we rated the service good overall and requires improvement in the Well-Led domain because staff supervisions were not recorded in line with the provider and best practice guidance. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and staff supervisions were well organised and completed. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People were safe at Malvern House. Staff understood the need to safeguard people from abuse and harm and would report any incidents. The risks people experienced were assessed and understood and guidance was put in place for staff. People's medicines were well managed and the documentation was clear. The home was a safe and clean environment to live in and staff protected people from the risk and spread of infection. There were enough staff to meet people's needs and give individual support.

People's needs were assessed and recorded in individual plans. The staff had been trained in mandatory and relevant knowledge and skills to give effective care. People's health needs were understood and they were helped to stay healthy and attend appointments. People were involved in making their own meals and supported to eat a balanced diet. The physical environment was suitable and there was enough space for people to live together happily. The legal requirements for consent to care were met. People had choice and control in their lives and were supported in the least restrictive way possible.

The staff ensured there was a calm atmosphere in the home and understood people well. Staff interaction with people was always patient and caring. People were supported to have as much independence as was possible and staff encouraged people to do things for themselves. People were respected and spoken to in an appropriate way.

Each person's personality and preferences were known and staff responded to people in an individual way. There was a plan for each person to undertake activities that suited them during the day. Complaints were responded to in a timely way. People's wishes at end of life were being explored in a sensitive way.

There was a culture of delivering person centred care in the organisation. The registered manager was respected and had developed an open and honest approach with staff. Governance, reporting and accountability arrangements were clear. Peoples' and relatives' views were sought and listened to. There was an internal quality audit process and a willingness to try new things that would improve people's lives. Staff were engaged and felt able to offer their ideas. The service was part of the local community and people benefitted from accessing the town and its facilities.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The five questions we ask about services and what we found