Lady Spencer House

The provider continued to have a booking in system for visiting. This had not been reviewed to reflect the easing of the government restrictions on visiting imposed as a response to the COVID19 pandemic. Some relatives told us they did not like this because they felt it prevented them from seeing their family members as frequently as they would like.

There were enough staff on shift, and we saw that the manager had several ways with which they checked staffing numbers were sufficient such as a dependency tool, practice observations and whole shift observations.

Care plans and risk assessments were completed as required and regularly reviewed and updated. Everyone had a personal evacuation plan detailing the support they required to evacuate the building in the event of a fire. We saw that fire evacuation equipment was in place on all floors.

People told us they felt safe, and staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from harm. They understood who to report any concerns to both within the service and to external bodies. People's medicines were managed safely, and we saw that appropriate referrals were made to external professionals to ensure people's health care needs were met. People received appropriate support to maintain a healthy diet. We saw people had enough to eat and drink and that food provided appeared to be of a good quality. Where people were at risk of not eating or drinking enough, this was monitored, and appropriate referrals made.

Although some areas of the home and some furnishings were tired and in need of replacement at the time of the inspection, a refurbishment programme was underway. The manager assured us that people were being consulted about this work and that the needs of everyone, including those living with dementia, were being considered when making improvements to the environment.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People told us that staff were kind, attentive, respected their decisions and protected their dignity and privacy.

People had a range of opportunities on offer to occupy their time in ways that were meaningful to them. This ranged from having access to newspapers, quizzes and word searches, to group and individual pastimes such as playing the guitar, making bread and popping to the shops. Staff engaged positively with people and there was an amiable and comfortable atmosphere in the home.

The provider and manager had good oversight of the service. There were robust quality monitoring systems which included seeking feedback from people, their relatives and staff through a variety of means. The manager was visible within the service and frequently carried out practice observations to review the quality of care provided. There was a strong emphasis on staff development and learning. Staff completed a wide range of training to support them to carry out their roles well. Incidents, accidents, events and complaints were all used to identify areas for development and improvement of the service.