Archived: Holly Grange

People told us they were treated well by the staff and they told us they felt safe whilst their care was being provided. There were systems in place to support staff and provide them with guidance on how to care for people in a safe way. Staff had received the relevant training so that the care and support they provided to people was appropriate and delivered in a way that met people's individual assessed needs.

There were systems in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents, incidents and complaints and concerns. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Is the service effective?

People we spoke with and some of their relatives who were visiting told us that their health care needs were assessed on a regular basis. We were told that where possible people, and their families were fully involved with this process. We were told that there were opportunities for people to express their views and be involved in the way the service was managed.Views were gathered in a variety of waysincluding oe to one conversations on care planning, resident and relative meetings, feedback surveys and questionnaire. There was a complaints policy and procedure in place and people told us that they felt confident in raising concerns and complaints and that they would be listened to and responded to in a timely manner.

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with were complimentary about the care and support provided by staff. During our visit we saw several examples of good care where staff used appropriate methods of communication with people to ensure the health, safety and well- being.

Visiting professionals told us that the staff were pro-active in ensuring people were referred to the appropriate healthcare professionals so that people's health care was met in a safe way. We were told that staff were regularly seen providing good quality care to people living in the home.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that systems were in place to consult with people about the care and support they received and the way in which the home was run. We saw documentary evidence to demonstrate that this was a listening service and that staff and management were keen to provide services in a way that met individual care needs.

Is the service well led?

During our visit staff and people visiting the home told us that the manager was open and transparent and always listened to the views and opinions of others. We were told that the manager was very actively involved in the day to day running of the home and that staff could approach her at any time with their concerns. Families told us that the manager was approachable and that they could raise any issues with her.

We saw records to show that demonstrated the service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received the care they required.

The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that the service had implemented the system. We saw results from service user/family feedback surveys and that the manager had been pro-active in responding to the evaluations of this information.

We spoke with one relative who was visiting and they remarked on the continuity of staff, "There are hardly any changes in the staff team, they really seem to know the people well. The care is excellent and staff spend time with the people living here."

From our observations and from talking to people living in the home, we saw that staff seemed to have a good understanding of the individual needs of people. Throughout our visit, we saw staff taking the time to listen to people and respond in an appropriate way.

We saw that there were good standards of hygiene throughout the home, and that staff were aware of polices and practices they needed to follow to ensure that the maintenance of appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene were maintained.

During our last visit in March 2013 we found that a reduction in staffing levels meant that there was a risk that the staff team would be unable to respond to unexpected emergencies, and that there was insufficient cover to enable the manager to undertake managerial duties. At that inspection a compliance action was made for the provider to address this. Since that visit staffing levels had been increased and the manager had been given authorisation to allocate hours to carry out her managerial duties.

From our observations and from talking to people living in the home we saw that staff appeared to have a good understanding of the individual needs of people. We saw numerous examples of good practice where staff took time to listen to people and provide support in a caring and sensitive way.

We saw that staff received training appropriate to their role. This meant people were supported by a trained and skilled staff team.

People told us that they felt comfortable raising any concerns with staff and confident in making a complaint to the manager if appropriate.