Ivy View

Right Support Staff supported the person to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence and to be in control over their own lives; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The person received personalised care and support which was completely built around their needs and preferences. The person had their own small staff team who they knew and trusted. We were told that the service was specifically set up for the person who lived at the property.

There was a core team of staff who had worked at the home for a number of years and knew the person well. The person was supported to be involved in all decisions about their care and support. Staff supported the person to make choices and communicated with the person in ways that met their needs.

Staff focused on the persons strengths and promoted what they could do, so the person had a fulfilling and meaningful everyday life.

The person was supported in ways that reduced periods of distress. The person was clearly relaxed with staff and reassured by their presence.

Staff supported the person to take part in home based activities and pursue interests in their local area if they enjoyed this. Staff told us that prior to the pandemic, the person attended and enjoyed a number of community activities but due to the restrictions associated with the pandemic, the person was not currently attending these. The registered manager advised that this will be reviewed.

Staff enabled the person to access specialist health and social care support in the community.

Staff supported the person safely with their medicines and worked with health professionals to achieve good health outcomes. Staff worked with other professionals to avoid the person taking unnecessary medicines.

Infection control procedures and measures were in place to protect the person from infection control risks associated with COVID-19.

Right Care The person received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected the persons privacy and dignity. They understood and responded to their individual needs. Throughout the inspection we saw kind, relaxed, compassionate and caring interactions between the person and staff. We observed that staff were respectful of the person and took time to offer support and reassurance when needed.

Staff understood how to protect the person from poor care and abuse. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.

There were enough staff to meet the persons needs. Staff understood and anticipated the person's needs which contributed to a calm atmosphere at the home.

The person could communicate with staff and understand information given to them because staff supported them consistently and understood their individual communication needs.

The persons care and support plan reflected their range of needs and this promoted their wellbeing and enjoyment of life.

The person could take part in activities and pursue interests that were tailored to them.

Right culture The staff were committed to ensuring the person was leading the life the person wanted and placed the persons wishes, needs and rights at the heart of everything they did. Staff told us that they "Help [the person] to have a nice day, what ever [the person] feels like doing. Helping [the person] be as proactive as possible."

The person received kind and compassionate care from staff who were calm, and attentive to the person's emotions and support needs. A relative spoke positively about the persons staff and commented that "[The person] appreciates their calmness."

The person was treated with dignity, respect and care. Although staffing levels were high, staff appreciated that this could be intrusive and worked in ways that enabled the person to have safe time alone when needed.

Staff empowered the person to make their own decisions about their care and support. Where the person was assessed as lacking capacity to make a decision, the service was working within the principles of the MCA with best interest processes followed and recorded. Applications had been made for the person to be deprived of their liberty where they needed this level of protection to keep them safe. The person did not have access to all the areas of their home. Whilst these restrictions were not reflected in the person's DOL's, during the inspection the registered manager reviewed these restrictions and a Mental Capacity Assessment and Best Interest decision put in place.

The person, and those important to them, were involved in planning their care. Staff discussed how the person expressed themselves when they were unhappy. This was through informal means such as becoming agitated or distressed. Staff also reflected on the persons preferences when considering the quality of support they provided. This meant the persons views were considered when planning for the service. The persons relative told us they felt fully involved.

The person's quality of life was enhanced by the staff team's commitment to ensuring a respectful and inclusive culture. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the care and support the person received.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued by senior staff which supported a positive and improvement- driven culture.

The staff, registered manager and home leader were open and transparent throughout our inspection. The registered manager and home leader acted efficiently on queries and feedback throughout the inspection.