Minster Grange Residential Home

Minster Grange Residential Home accommodates 26 people across two floors. Most rooms have their own ensuite and some rooms are shared rooms. At this inspection 16 people were living in the home.

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ Staff changed their clothing upon starting and finishing work, to reduce the risk of cross infection.

¿ Social distancing was promoted within the communal areas of the home.

¿ Visitors were supported in a safe way to minimise the risk of cross infection.

¿ When required, additional staff had been placed onto shift to support people while they isolated in their rooms.

¿ Specific training around infection prevention and control for Covid-19 had been given to staff to promote awareness and reduce anxieties.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Minster Grange Residential Home is a residential care home providing personal care to for up to 26 people aged under and over 65, who may have dementia, physical disability or sensory impairment.

Minster Grange Residential Home accommodates 26 people across two floors. Most rooms have their own suit and some rooms are shared rooms. At this inspection 25 people were living in the home.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they felt safe and supported by the staff who worked in the home. One person said, “I am very happy here.” Staff recognised different types of abuse and how to report it. The registered manager understood their safeguarding responsibilities and how to protect people from abuse. Potential risks to people's health and wellbeing had been identified and were managed safely. People, and where appropriate, their relatives, had been involved with decisions in how to reduce risk associated with people’s care. A relative told us, “I feel like they really listen to me and understand.” There were sufficient staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs. People's medicines were managed and stored in a safe way. Safe practice was carried out to reduce the risk of infection.

People's care needs had been assessed and reviews took place with the person and where appropriate their

relative. Staff had the training and support to be able to care for people in line with best practice. People were supported to have a healthy balanced diet and were given food they enjoyed. Staff worked with external healthcare professionals and followed their guidance and advice about how to support people following best practice. 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 did support this practice.

People were supported by staff who treated them well. One relative said, “I visited a lot of home and so glad I managed to get a place here for [person’s name]. They are very content.” Staff treated people as individuals and respected the choices they made. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their dignity.

People's care was delivered in a timely way, with any changes in care being communicated clearly to the

staff team. People told us they were supported and encouraged to maintain their hobbies and interests that were individual to them. People had access to information about how to raise a complaint. The provider responded to complaints in line with their policy and procedure. People's end of life care needs were met in line with their preferences in a respectful and dignified way.

All people, relatives and staff felt the registered manager had made positive improvements to the home and the way the service was run. The registered manager was visible within the home and listened to people and staff's views about the way the service was run. The provider had put checks into place to monitor the quality of the service provision.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 14 November 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

People continued to receive safe care and there were enough staff to provide support and care to meet people’s needs. People were protected from the risk of harm. People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff were suitably recruited to ensure they were able to work with people who lived at the home.

People made decisions about their care and staff sought people’s consent. Where people lacked capacity they were helped to make decisions. Where their liberty was restricted, this had been identified and action taken to ensure this was lawful. People received supported to stay well and had access to health care services. They were able to choose what to eat. Staff received training to meet the specific needs of people who lived at the home.

People were treated with dignity and respect. People were asked their preferences about how they wanted to be supported and cared for. These details were recorded in people’s care plans including their end of life wishes.

People were involved in the planning and review of their care and support. Staff went the extra mile to ensure people had a variety of things to do for fun and interest. People knew how to make a complaint or raise a concern.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. People and staff were encouraged to raise any views about the service about how improvements could be made. The registered manager promoted an open culture which put people at the centre of the service.

While at Minster Grange we spoke with the registered manager and the deputy manager. We spoke with five members of staff and five people who used the service. We spoke with three relatives of people who used the service while they visited the home.

We observed how staff interacted with people. We saw that staff spoke with people in a respectful manner. We observed that people appeared relaxed and comfortable with the care provided. Comments from people who used the service included: 'I am happy with the quality of care. I feel safe here' and: 'You are looked after here. It's like home from home.' Comments from relatives included: 'Very impressed with the care' and: 'We think it is very good'.

We looked at the care records for three people and found that their needs had been assessed. The records showed that care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with people's individual needs. Staff told us that they were aware of each person's needs and how to give care and support to meet these needs.

We found that the equipment that was used in the home was maintained appropriately and that staff had been trained in its use.

Staff had been recruited in an appropriate way and checks had been undertaken to make sure that they were suitable to care for people who used the service.

Staff were trained and received support through staff supervision. This made sure that all staff had suitable skills so they provided consistent care to people who used the service.

While at Minister Grange we saw that care workers were being courteous and respectful towards people who used the service. Staff spoke about how they upheld people's privacy and dignity and generally this was seen to happen.

Care plans, risk assessments and other records were in place to give staff guidance and direction about the level of care required to meet individual needs.

Information on safeguarding was available for people in the home including members of staff. Staff training records were available and it was evident that they had an understanding of their responsibilities in the event of them becoming aware or suspecting actual or potential abusive events.

Systems were in place to ensure recruitment procedures were implemented to carry out checks on potential staff members before they commenced work at the home.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of care provided and as a means to identifying any improvements that were needed.