You are here

Adel Grange Residential Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 13 June 2018

This inspection took place on 25 April 2018 and was unannounced.

At our last inspection on 30 November 2016 we rated Adel Grange as requires improvement. We found the provider had breached one regulation associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This related to protecting people’s dignity and respect. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions of responsive and well led to at least good.

When we completed our previous inspection, we found concerns regarding care planning for people who exhibit distressed behaviour, which placed themselves and other people at potential risk. At this time this topic area was included under the key question of responsive. We reviewed and refined our assessment framework and published the new assessment framework in October 2017. Under the new framework this topic area is included under the key question of safe. Therefore, for this inspection, we have inspected this key question and the previous key question of responsive to make sure all areas are inspected to validate the ratings.

At this inspection, we found that people’s needs were assessed and appropriate steps had been taken to reduce the impact of people’s behaviour on others. Improvements made following the November 2016 inspection had been embedded and sustained.

This service is now rated as Good.

Adel Grange is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care home accommodates 30 people living with dementia in one adapted building. At this inspection there were 27 people living in the home.

There was a manager in post. The manager had submitted their application to the Care Quality Commission to be the registered manager. 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.

There was a clear emphasis on leadership, teamwork and good communication between staff at all levels. The manager had developed a positive culture which promoted high quality, person-centred care. Safe recruitment procedures were followed and staff were provided with constructive training, coaching and supervision to implement identified changes.

The manager had developed new quality assurance procedures and they acted as an effective role model and mentor to ensure these were implemented appropriately. The manager was aware of the areas which still required improvement and spoke confidently about further plans for staff development. Individual staff or ‘champions’ had specific responsibility for systems relating to safeguarding recruitment, medicines, care planning, infection control and health and safety. This promoted a sense of ownership among the staff team. This proactive approach was also seen when a minor incident occurred during our inspection visit as the manager analysed the situation to put changes in place to prevent a reoccurrence.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect. They displayed a caring and compassionate attitude towards people throughout our inspection. Staff knew about people’s preferences, likes and

dislikes and they used this knowledge to deliver personalised care.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Comprehensive support plans were in place for people who tended to become anxious or upset. These ensured that staff knew the b

Inspection areas



Updated 13 June 2018

The service was safe.

Risks were identified and action taken to minimise risks to people and reduce the likelihood of harm occurring.

Staff had a good knowledge of people and understood how to support them and reduce their anxiety.

Appropriate systems were in place to keep people safe from harm such as medicines, recruitment, safeguarding and health and safety.



Updated 13 June 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had appropriate training, supervision and support to fulfil their roles effectively.

People were supported to make their own decisions and where needed decisions were made in people's best interests.

People were provided with a nutritious diet and they were supported to access healthcare services to maintain their health.



Updated 13 June 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

Staff were enthusiastic and caring. They could describe people�s likes, dislikes and care preferences and used this knowledge to deliver person-centred care.

Relatives were actively involved in the home and, where needed, people had access to advocacy services to support them.



Updated 13 June 2018

The service was responsive.

People had opportunities to take part in a range of activities. People could access a secure garden area independently or were supported to go out for walks if they wished.

People received care based on their preferences and friends and families were encouraged to visit to reduce the risk of social isolation.

Relatives and people told us if they were unhappy they felt confident to tell the manager and staff.



Updated 13 June 2018

The service was well led.

There was an open and transparent structure for learning from incidents and working in partnership to drive continuous improvement.

The manager clearly understood their role and responsibilities and staff morale was high. Staff told us the manager was approachable and they

felt supported.

People living in the home, relatives and staff were regularly asked for their views and their suggestions were acted upon.

Effective quality assurance systems were in place to ensure people�s safety and wellbeing was promoted.