Granville Court

We found the following examples of good practice.

Staff had been creative in supporting people with changes to reduce people’s anxieties. For example, staff had created scrubs in line with peoples likes and interests.

Staff felt well supported. Regular supervision and small team meetings were held to encourage staff to share any concerns in relation to COVID-19. Staff also had the opportunity to speak with one of the providers psychologists through drop-in sessions.

The provider had purchased a portacabin with separated changing areas. This allowed staff and visitors to change their clothes prior to entering the service.

National guidance was being followed to ensure staff and people living in the service were regularly tested for COVID-19. Where this was not appropriate risk assessments had been completed to mitigate any risk.

When people had to isolate, boxes had been prepared with items to support people with isolation. For example, DVDs and sensory items.

Regular communication had been promoted with relatives. The provider had updated their procedures in line with Government guidelines to allow for indoor visits. 'Practice visits' had been carried out to ensure these visits were supported in a safe way.

People’s experience of using this service: People were supported to live enriched lives and achieve good outcomes. People were encouraged and supported to take positive risks to allow for an unrestricted and meaningful life. Staff showed a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities for keeping people safe from harm. Medicines were managed safely and people received medication at the right time for them. Families told us they felt people were extremely safe whilst being supported by staff and felt able to live a safe, fulfilled life.

Care plans were extremely detailed and identified people’s communication needs. Staff provided care and support that was delivered in a way people preferred and provided consistent and positive outcomes. People who lacked capacity were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Policies and systems supported them in the least restrictive way possible

Family members spoke enthusiastically about how consistently kind and caring staff and managers were. Staff were highly motivated to provided a person-centred culture and delivered care in a kind and compassionate way that was based on people’s preferences.

The leadership of the service demonstrated a high level of experience and capability to deliver good care; they were knowledgeable and passionate about their role. The registered manager demonstrated a strong and supportive leadership style, seeking feedback in order

to further improve the care and support provided. They promoted a culture that was extremely person-centred and inclusive which staff recognised and appreciated. Staff were proud to work at the service. The registered manager showed a continued desire to improve on the service and worked closely with other agencies and healthcare professionals to do this. Effective systems were in place to check on the quality and safety of the service and improvements were made when required.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support in the following way; promotion of inclusion and choice and control. People’s support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to live a full and meaningful life.

The service met the characteristics of good in all areas; more information is in the full report

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 10 August 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on previous rating.

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

The home is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to 20 people who have a profound learning disability. We were told that the service usually accommodated a maximum of 13 people. On the day of the inspection there were 12 people living at the home, including two people who were having respite care. The home is situated in Hornsea, a seaside town in the East Riding of Yorkshire. The home consists of two separate units on the same site, each with a kitchen, lounge / dining area, bathrooms and bedrooms. All of the accommodation is on the ground floor.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

On the day of the inspection we saw that there were sufficient numbers of staff employed to meet people's individual needs. New staff had been employed following robust recruitment and selection policies and this ensured that only people considered suitable to work with vulnerable people were working at Granville Court.

People were protected from the risks of harm or abuse because there were effective systems in place to manage any safeguarding concerns. The registered manager, unit manager and staff were trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of protecting people from the risk of harm.

Staff confirmed that they received induction training when they were new in post and told us that they were happy with the training provided for them, including training on the administration of medication. We saw that medicines were stored, recorded and administered safely.

We observed that staff were caring, compassionate and encouraging; it was clear they understood the particular needs of the people they were supporting.

People's nutritional needs had been assessed and people were provided with meals and nutrition that met their individual dietary requirements.

We saw that any complaints made to the home had been thoroughly investigated and that people had been provided with details of the investigation and outcome. There were also systems in place to seek feedback from people who lived at the home, relatives and staff, and to involve relatives in the running of the home.

Staff, relatives and a health care professional told us that the home was very well managed. Quality audits undertaken by the registered manager were designed to identify any areas of improvement to staff practice that would promote safety and optimum care to people who lived at the home. Staff told us that, on occasions, feedback received at the home was used as a learning opportunity and to make improvements to the service provided.