You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 February 2017

We undertook an unannounced inspection of Grove Hill Care Home on 19 January 2017.

Grove Hill is a residential care home providing care and support for up to 27 people. The home is situated in Highworth near Swindon and the accommodation is arranged over three floors. The home's owner is also the registered manager. On the day of our inspection 23 people were living at the home.

At the last inspection on the 8 December 2015 we found the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) principles were not being followed in line with the MCA code of practice. This was a breach of Regulation 11 Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

We also found records were not always detailed with enough information to ensure people’s safety and well being and there was not an effective system in place to monitor the quality and safety within the service. These concerns were a breach of Regulation 17 Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

At this inspection we found the home had made significant improvements to address the areas of concern and bring the service up to the required standards.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and applied its principles in their work. The MCA protects the rights of people who may not be able to make particular decisions themselves. The registered manager was knowledgeable about the MCA and how to ensure the rights of people who lacked capacity were protected, this included people who were deprived of their liberty.

Records in relation to people who used the service were complete and accurate. The manager conducted regular audits to monitor the quality of service. Learning from these audits was used to make improvements.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

We were greeted warmly by staff at the service who seemed genuinely pleased to see us. The atmosphere was open and friendly.

People told us they were safe. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. Staff had received regular training to make sure they stayed up to date with recognising and reporting safety concerns. The service had systems in place to notify the appropriate authorities where concerns were identified.

People were supported by staff that were extremely knowledgeable about people’s needs and provided support with compassion and kindness. People received high quality care that was personalised and met their needs.

Where risks to people had been identified, risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to manage the risks. Staff were aware of people’s needs and followed guidance to keep them safe. People received their medicines as prescribed.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Staff responded promptly where people required assistance. The service had robust recruitment procedures and conducted background checks to ensure staff were suitable for their role.

The service responded to people’s changing needs. People and their families were involved in their care and how their care progressed and developed.

Staff spoke extremely positively about the support they received from the registered manager. Staff supervisions and meetings were scheduled as were annual appraisals. Staff told us the registered manager was very approachable and supportive and that there was a very good level of communication and trust within the service.

The service sought people's views and opinions. Relatives told us they were confident they would be listened to and action would be taken if they raised a concern.

People had sufficient to eat and drink. Where people required special diets, for example, pureed or fortifie

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 February 2017

The service was safe

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs.

People told us they felt safe. Staff knew how to identify and raise concerns.

Risks to people were managed and assessments were in place to reduce the risks and keep people safe. People received their medicines as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 February 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had the training and knowledge to support them effectively.

Staff received support and supervision and had access to further training and development.

Staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and understood and applied its principles.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 February 2017

The service was caring

People benefitted from caring relationships with staff.

Staff were very kind, compassionate and respectful and treated people and their relatives with dignity and respect.

Staff gave people the time to express their wishes and respected the decisions they made.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 February 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans were personalised and gave clear guidance for staff on how to support people. Staff were motivated and committed to delivering personalised care.

People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns and were confident action would be taken.

People’s needs were assessed prior to receiving any care to make sure their needs could be met. Support needs were regularly reviewed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 February 2017

The service was well led.

The registered manager led by example and empowered and motivated their staff. Staff’s actions and attitudes mirrored this example.

The service had systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of service.

The service shared learning and looked for continuous improvement.